Vergados - The Homeric Hymn To Hermes - Introduction, Text and Commentary-Walter de Gruyter (2012)

I
Athanassios Vergados
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes
II
TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE

Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe
Herausgegeben von
Siegmar Döpp, Adolf Köhnken, Ruth Scodel
Band 41
De Gruyter
III
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes

Introduction, Text and Commentary
by
Athanassios Vergados
De Gruyter
IV
ISBN 978-3-11-025969-8
e-ISBN 978-3-11-025970-4
ISSN 0563-3087
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
© 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
o Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Table of Contents V
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Summary of the poem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Music, poetry, and language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Hermes’ two songs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Hermes’ songs as mise en abyme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Semata, poetry, and prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Hermes’ deceptive language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Humour in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Relation to archaic literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1.1 Vocabulary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Words attested thus far only in h.Herm. (42) – Words
which h.Herm. shares with Hesiod but not with Homer
(42) – Words and phrases used in h.Herm. differently than
in Homer and/or Hesiod (42) – Words not attested in
Homer and Hesiod (43) – Miscellaneous: atticisms, use of
special vocabulary, further peculiarities (45)
4.1.2 Formulaic Phrases: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Doublets within h.Herm. (48) – Meaningful substitutions
(49) – Verbal echoes of other archaic hexameter poems in
h.Herm. (52) – Formulaic phrases confined to h.Herm. (56)
4.2 Metre and prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Dactyls and spondees (57) – Caesurae, bridges, word-ends
and enjambment (59) – Other prosodic features (62)
4.3 Thematic correspondences between h.Herm. and other ar-
chaic hexameter poems: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
VI Table of Contents
H.Herm. and the Odyssean tradition (65) – H.Herm.

and Hesiod (67) – H. Herm. and h.Apol. (70)
Appendix: oral or literate composition?. . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5. Relation to other literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.1 References to the story of h.Herm. in other authors . . . 76
Alcaeus (76) – Hellanicus (78) – Sophocles (79) – Aratus
(86) – Nicander (87) – [Eratosthenes] (88) – Eratosthenes
(89) – Hyginus (92) – [Apollodorus] (93) – Lucian (97) –
Philostratus (100) – Antoninus Liberalis (101) – Metio-
chus and Parthenope (103) – D on Il. 15.256 (104) –
Pausanias (105) – IG XIV 2557= Epigr.Gr. 1032 Kaibel
(105) – P.Oxy. VII 1015 (105) – Nonnus (107) – Sum-
mary and Conclusions (108)
5.2 Allusions to h.Herm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
h.Hom.Pan (110) – Antimachus (111) – Sotades (112) –
Antigonus Carystius (113) – Apollonius Rhodius (113) –
Callimachus (117) – [Theocritus] (119) – Marcus Argen-
tarius (124)
6. Structure and arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7. Date and place of composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.1 Date of composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Voss, Mythologische Briefe (131) – The seven-stringed
lyre (133) – Delphi (135) – Allusions to social or political
issues (136) – Rhetoric and music (138) – The glotto-
chronologic approach (142) – Other considerations (145)
7.2 Place of composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8. The transmission of the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
6Y« « E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
Table of Contents VII
Acknowledgments
This book, like the god who forms its subject matter, has travelled con-
siderably. It began life in the United States as a doctoral dissertation
submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the University of Vir-
ginia. It acquired its penultimate form in Lancaster, PA, where I was
working as a visiting assistant professor of Classics at Franklin & Mar-
shall College. And it assumed its final incarnation at the Seminar für
Klassische Philologie in Heidelberg.
My deep thanks go to my dissertation advisor Jenny Strauss Clay
for her constructive criticism and encouragement that made the writing
of the dissertation an intellectually enjoyable experience and confirmed
my choice of a commentary as my topic. I am also grateful to the
members of my doctoral committee, David Kovacs, Edward Courtney,
and Gordon Braden, for their comments on my dissertation.
Nicholas Richardson generously made his material on the Hymn to
Hermes available to me in advance of the publication of his Green and
Yellow commentary on three of the Homeric Hymns. He also read and
commented extensively on the dissertation as well as the revised manu-
script. William Furley read the final version of the entire manuscript
and made observations on all kinds of matters, from English style to
textual criticism. James Diggle, Douglas Olson, and David Sider also
commented on large sections of the book, for which I am grateful.
Parts of the introduction were presented at professional meetings:
at the 2006 Convention of the American Philological Association in
Montréal, where Nancy Felson and Ann Suter contributed construc-
tive comments, and at the 2006 CAMWS convention in Gainesville,
Florida. A draft of the commentary on lines 212–77 was discussed at
the Commentary Writing Workshop organized by Douglas Olson and
Alexander Sens at the University of Minnesota. My thanks go to both
the organizers and the participants (Marco Fantuzzi, John Gibert,
Kathryn Gutzwiller, Hayden Pelliccia) for the lively discussion and
helpful comments. Various sections of the introduction were also pre-
VIII Acknowledgments
sented in Lyon, at the conference “Les Hymnes de la Grèce antique:

Entre littérature et histoire” organized by Pascale Brillet-Dubois, Na-
dine Le Meur-Weissman, and Richard Bouchon, and at the symposium
“Fiction, Truth, and Reality” in Katowice, Poland.
My research was partly funded by a faculty research/professional
development fund at Franklin & Marshall College. I am also grateful to
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for granting me a two year
long research fellowship.
Nikoletta Kanavou, József Krupp, Cecilia Nobili, and Andreas
Schwab read shorter portions of the work. Zsolt Adorjáni, Cecilia No-
bili, Polyxeni Strolonga, and Oliver Thomas kindly shared their docto-
ral dissertations or their work on the Hymn to Hermes in advance of
publication; and Menelaos Christopoulos discussed the Hymn with me
and shared some of his material on the poem.
I would also like to thank Piero Boitani and the Fondazione Lo-
renzo Valla for allowing me to use a modified version of F. Càssola’s
critical text and apparatus. For the images included in this book, I am
grateful for the help of Tyler Jo Smith (Virginia); Charles Arnold, Al-
lexander Villing, and Alice Moschetti (British Museum); Anne Coulié
and Céline Rebière-Plé (Louvre); Anne Schulte (bpk/Metropolitan
Museum of Art New York); and Daniel Dalet for the map of Greece
that I have used to illustrate Hermes and Apollo’s journeys in the
Hymn.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Senior Editor for
Classics at Walter de Gruyter, Sabine Vogt, to Katharina Legutke and
Katja Brockmann, and to the Editors of De Gruyter’s Texte und Kom-
mentare for including my book in their series, and especially Ruth Sco-
del for her remarks on the manuscript.
Heidelberg, August 2011

Abbreviations IX
Abbreviations
For Greek authors and works I use the abbreviations in LSJ9, with the
exception of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes which I abbreviate as
h.Herm. instead of h.Merc. to avoid the awkward combination of
Hermes and Mercurius in the same line; accordingly, for the sake of
uniformity, I abbreviate the major Homeric Hymns as follows: h.Dem.,
h.Apol., h.Aphr. Roman authors and works are abbreviated according
to the OLD. For journals I use the abbreviations of L’Année Philol-
ogique. For papyrological sources I follow the Checklist of Editions of
Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets
(http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html).
The following abbreviated references are also used:
An. Ox. Cramer, J. A. 1835–37. Anecdota Graeca e codd.

manuscriptis Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium, 4 vols.
(Oxford).
AS Allen, T. W. and Sikes, E. E. 1904. The Homeric
Hymns (London).
AHS Allen, T. W., Halliday, R., and Sikes, E. E. 21936.
The Homeric Hymns. (Oxford).
Bechtel, GD Bechtel, F. 1921–24. Die griechischen Dialekte,
3 vols. (Berlin).
Beekes Beekes, R. S. P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of
Greek, 2 vols. (Leiden).
Bouché-Leclercq Bouché-Leclercq, A. 1963 (repr.) Histoire de la
divination dans l’antiquité, 3 vols. (Paris).
Buck GD Buck, C. D. 1955. The Greek Dialects. Grammar,
Selected Inscriptions, Glossary. (Chicago).
CA Powell, J. A. 1924. Collectanea Alexandrina. Reli-
quiae minores Poetarum Graecorum Aetatis Pto-
lemaicae 323–146 A.C. Epicorum, Elegiacorum,
Lyricorum, Ethicorum (Oxford).
X Abbreviations
CEG Hansen, P. A. 1983, 1989. Carmina epigraphica

graeca, 2 vols. (Berlin).
Chantraine, GH Chantraine, P. 1958, 1963. Grammaire homérique,
2 vols. (Paris).
Chantraine, DELG Chantraine, P. 2009. Dictionnaire étymologique
de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, 4 vols.
(Paris)
CGlL Goetz G. and Gundermann, G. 1888. Corpus
Glossariorum Latinorum, vol. 2, Glossae Latino-
graecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsia).
Clay Politics Clay, J. S. 1989. The Politics of Olympus. Form and
Meaning in the Major Homeric Hymns (Prince-
ton).
Daremberg-Saglio Daremberg Ch. and E. Saglio. 1877–1919. Dic-
tionaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, d’après
les textes et les monuments (Paris).
Denniston GP Denniston, J. D. 21975. The Greek Particles (Ox-
ford).
D.-K. Diels, H. and W. Kranz. 161972. Die Fragmente
der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. (Berlin).
D.Mic. Jorro, F. A. 1985. Diccionario Micénico (Madrid).
Ebeling Ebeling, H. 1963 (repr.) Lexicon Homericum (Hil-
desheim).
Epigr.Gr. Kaibel, G. 2001 (repr.) Epigrammata Graeca ex
lapidibus conlecta (Hildesheim).
Farnell, Cults Farnell, L. R. 1896–1907. The Cults of the Greek
States, 5 vols. (Oxford).
FD III Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie. Fasc. 1, In-
scriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor des
Athéniens, ed. É. Bourguet, Paris 1929; Fasc. 2,
Inscriptions du trésor des Athéniens, ed. G. Colin,
Paris 1909–13.
FGrE Page, D. L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams: Epi-
grams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology
and Other Sources, not Included in Hellenistic Epi-
grams or the Garland of Philip (Cambridge).
FGrH Jacoby, F. 1926–57. Die Fragmente der griechi-
schen Historiker (Berlin).
Abbreviations XI
Frisk Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wör-

terbuch (Heidelberg).
Goodwin GMT Goodwin, W. W. 1900. Syntax of the Moods and
Tenses of the Greek Verb (Boston).
GDRK Heitsch, E. 1961, 1964. Die griechischen Dichter-
fragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2 vols. (Göt-
tingen).
GP Gow, A. S. F. and D. L. Page. 1968. The Greek An-
thology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contem-
porary Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge).
HE Gow, A. S. F. and D. L. Page. 1965. The Greek An-
thology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cam-
bridge).
ILS Dessau, H. 1892–1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Se-
lectae, 3 vols. (Berlin).
I.Cret. Halbherr, F. 1935–1950. Inscriptiones Creticae, 4
vols. (Rome).
I.Orop. P , B. X. 1997. O¹ φξ«
# (#A
).
IosPE Latyshev, V. 1885–1901. Inscriptiones Antique
Orae Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Lati-
nae, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg).
I.Prien. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. Frhr. 1906. Inschriften
von Priene (Berlin).
I.Sestos Kraus, J. 1980. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der
thrakischen Chersones (Bonn).
IvO Dittenberger, W. and K. Purgold. 1896. Die In-
schriften von Olympia (Berlin).
Kühner Kühner, R. F.Blass/B.Gerth. 1890–1904. Ausführ-
liche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols.
(Hannover).
Leumann, HW Leumann, M. 1950. Homerische Wörter (Basel).
LfgrE Snell, B. et al. (ed.) 1955–2010. Lexikon des
frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen).
LGPN Fraser, P. M. (ed.) 1987–2010. A Lexicon of Greek
Personal Names, 5 vols. (Oxford).
LIMC Ackermann, H. Chr. (ed.) 1981–2009. Lexicon Ico-
nographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Düsseldorf).
XII Abbreviations
LSAM Sokolowski, F. 1952. Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mi-

neure (Paris).
LSCG Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grec-
ques (Paris).
LSJ Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. 91996. A Greek-En-
glish Lexicon, Revised and Augmented Throughout
by H. S. Jones. Edited with Revised Supplement
(Oxford).
LSS Sokolowski, F. 1962. Lois sacrées des cités grec-
ques, supplément (Paris).
Matthiae Matthiae, A. 1800. Animadversiones in hymnos
Homericos cum prolegomenis de cuiusque consilio,
partibus, aetate (Lipsia).
Monro Monro, D. B. 1882. A Grammar of the Homeric
Dialect (Oxford).
M-P3 Mertens-Pack 3, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires
grecs et latins (Liège), accessible online (promethee.
philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/index.htm).
NP Cancik, H. (ed.) 1999–2003. Der neue Pauly.
Enzyklopädie der Antike (Stuttgart/Weimar).
NGSL Lupu, E. 22009. Greek Sacred Law. A Collection
of New Documents. Second Edition with a Post-
script (Leiden/Boston).
OLD Glare, P. G. W. (ed.) 2007. Oxford Latin Diction-
ary (Oxford).
PGM Preisendanz, K. 21974. Papyri Graecae Magicae,
durchgesehen und herausgegeben von A. Hen-
richs (Stuttgart).
PMG Page, D. L. 1962. Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford).
Pokorny Pokorny, J. 52005. Indogermanisches etymologi-
sches Wörterbuch, 2 vols. (Bern/Tübingen).
Ruijgh, épique Ruijgh, C. J. 1971. Autour de “TE épique”; études
sur syntaxe grecque (Amsterdam).
Schulze, QE Schulze, W. 1967 (repr.) Quaestiones epicae (Hil-
desheim).
Schwyzer Schwyzer, E. 1934–71. Griechische Grammatik,
auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns griechi-
scher Grammatik, 4 vols. (Munich).
Abbreviations XIII
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (1924/5 –)

SGDI Collitz, H. and F. Bechtel. 1898–1911. Sammlung
der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, 4 vols. (Göt-
tingen).
SH Lloyd-Jones, H. and P. Parsons. 1983. Supplemen-
tum Hellenisticum (Berlin/New York).
S. Ichn. Sophocles, Ichneutae (= fr. 314); quoted from
TrGrFS.
SLG Page, D. L. 1974. Supplementum Lyricis Graecis.
Poetarum lyricorum Graecorum fragmenta quae
recens innotuerunt (Oxford).
Thompson, Thompson, S. 1955. Motif-Index of Folk-Litera-
Motif-Index ture; a Classification of Narrative Elements in
Folk-Tales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Ro-
mances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-Books, and Local
Legends (Bloomington).
Tit.Cam. Segre, M. and G. Pugliese Carratelli. (1949–51).
“Tituli Camirenses.” ASAtene 27–29: 141–318.
TrGrFS Diggle, J. 1998. Tragicorum Graecorum Frag-
menta Selecta (Oxford).
Zumbach Zumbach, O. 1955. Neuerungen in der Sprache der
homerischen Hymnen (Winterthur).
Note, finally, the following:

(i) An asterisk preceding a word in the commentary indicates that the
word in question is attested only in the Hymn. An asterisk following
a citation (or more rarely a word) means that the phrase in question oc-
curs in the same sedes as in h.Herm.
(ii) Authors whose work is preserved only fragmentarily are cited with-
out the indication fr.
(iii) I often use underlining to illustrate similarities between passages.
In case of multiple similarities, I mark each group of corresponding
phrases with the same type of underlining.
XIV Abbreviations
Introduction
2 Introduction
1. Summary of the poem
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes narrates Hermes’ adventures during the

first three days of his life. The son of Zeus and Maia, Hermes was born
on the fourth day of the month on Mt. Cyllene. Unlike ordinary babies,
he does not remain in his crib, but immediately leaves his mother’s
cave to search for Apollo’s cattle. In front of the cave he encounters a
tortoise, which he kills to construct a lyre. He tests the instrument by
improvising a hymn to himself, in which he sings of his parents’ love-
affair.
Thereafter, the divine child leaves the lyre in the cave and runs to
Pieria, where the gods’ cattle graze. He steals fifty of Apollo’s cows,
drives them backwards, and makes for himself a set of wondrous san-
dals by combining branches of myrtle and tamarisk. As he leads the
cows through Boeotia, he encounters an Old Man working in his vine-
yard, whom he addresses in riddling terms. He fodders and stables the
animals in a cave at Pylos and invents the method of kindling fire
through fire-sticks. Thereafter, he drags two of the cows out of the cave,
kills them, roasts their meat, and divides it into twelve equal portions.
Though the savour torments him, he cannot partake of his own por-
tion; he then burns all the meat along with the cows’ heads and feet and
departs quietly for his cave in Cyllene.
There, his mother Maia chastises him for returning late at night and
attempts to frighten him, reminding him of the punishment he will
suffer at the hands of Apollo. To these words Hermes reacts by claiming
that he is not an infant; he will look after himself and his mother using
the art that is the best: if Zeus does not give him what he deserves, he
will steal it.
On the following day, Apollo realizes that his cows are missing and
looks for them. He encounters the same Old Man that Hermes had met
on the previous day and asks him for information. The anonymous Old
Man replies that he had seen a child leading some backwards walking
cows, whereupon Apollo observes a bird-omen and realizes the thief’s
Summary of the poem 3
identity. He immediately darts to Pylos, but unable to discover the pre-

cise location of his cattle due to the confusing tracks left by Hermes’
sandals and the backwards marching cows, Apollo goes to Maia’s cave
at Cyllene and threatens Hermes with violence unless he reveals the
cattle’s whereabouts. The divine child denies any involvement, claiming
that as a newborn infant he is unable to steal cattle, and even offers an
oath to this effect, albeit a tricky one. The two gods’ altercation con-
tinues with Apollo attempting to seize Hermes, and the two divine
brothers finally take the matter to Zeus.
The new day begins as the gods assemble on Olympus. Apollo and
Hermes each give their own account of the events. On this occasion too
Hermes expertly denies his involvement and uses clever language to
avoid perjury. Seeing through Hermes’ tricks, Zeus bursts into laughter
and orders him to reveal where he had hidden the cattle. The two divine
brothers dart to Pylos, and Hermes leads the cattle out of the cave
where they were hidden. Thereupon, Apollo attempts to bind Hermes,
but the bonds of osiers fall onto the ground, take root, grow, and cover
the cows. Immediately after this miracle Hermes takes his lyre and sings
a theogony for Apollo, who is enchanted by his younger brother’s abil-
ities in music and wishes to learn more about his art. Hermes explains
the way in which one should “question” the lyre and exchanges the in-
strument for the stolen animals. Apollo receives the lyre and begins to
sing to its accompaniment, while Hermes invents the syrinx (pan-
pipes). The two divine brothers depart then for Olympus.
There Apollo expresses his fear that Hermes might steal his bow
and lyre; an exchange of oaths ensues, in which Hermes promises not to
steal any of Apollo’s belongings, while Apollo grants Hermes the cadu-
ceus and the oracle of the ‘Bee-maidens,’ whose operation he explains.
Hermes assumes the patronage over several kinds of animals and is ap-
pointed as messenger to Hades. The Hymn comes to its end after a re-
minder of Hermes’ deceitful nature.
4 Introduction
2. Music, Poetry, and Language
Music and song are central to the development of the poem’s story.
The high degree of self-reflexivity that h.Herm. exhibits presupposes
the poet’s serious engagement with the nature of his art. Hermes is pre-
sented as the inventor of a new musical instrument, the tortoise-lyre, on
which he performs two songs. The god appears as the archetypal bard
and the inventor of the hymnic genre with whom the poet later identi-
fies himself. However, Hermes’ two musical performances differ from
each other in content, style, genre, and function, and reveal a develop-
ment in the god’s character.
2.1 Hermes’ Two Songs1

Hermes’ first performance occurs at lines 54–62. The young god has en-
countered the tortoise outside his cave, has taken the animal inside, and
fashioned the chelys, whose construction the poet narrates in some de-
tail (41–51). Thereafter Hermes tests the instrument, first by plucking
the strings one-by-one ( «), and then by improvising a hymn
to himself.
This hymn-within-the-Hymn is clearly marked off as a new begin-
ning. It is introduced in a manner typical of the Homeric Hymns, viz.
with the opening formula $ accompanied by $φ with the ac-
cusative of the god’s name.2 The question that immediately arises is why
Hermes performs such a song at this point. As Jenny Strauss Clay has
shown, at the beginning of the poem Hermes is uncertain of his own
divine status.3 This “identity crisis” is only resolved when the young god
1 On music in h.Herm. in general, see Kaimio (1974), Christopoulos (1985, 115–30), and
Hübner (1986).
2 For the various hymnic/proemic openings, see A. Lenz (1980, 21–26) and Race (1992,
19–22), and below 1n. and 57n.
3 See Clay Politics 122 and below 116–41n.
Music, Poetry, and Language 5
fails to partake of the meat of the two cows he kills at the Alpheios river.
Since gods do not eat meat, Hermes’ inability to consume his portion is
an indication of his divine nature, and it is significant that the poet calls
Hermes a only after the events at the Alpheios (138).
Hermes’ hymn to himself would fit very well with this “identity cri-
sis”: gods are supposed to be praised by mortals, but no one yet reco-
gnizes the newborn god. Thus he undertakes the task of his own praise.
At the same time, precisely because he has not yet completed even a
day’s life, Hermes has not acquired the honours that would mark his
position in the divine cosmos and would form the basis of his praise.
His only achievement so far has been the fabrication of the lyre; conse-
quently he can praise himself only obliquely. By relating the love-affair
of his parents, Hermes attempts to legitimize his own status: he presents
the relationship of Zeus and Maia as a lasting one, suggesting that it is
different from Zeus’s usual flings.4 Furthermore, Maia – elsewhere little
known – appears in Hermes’ hymn to be Zeus’s equal.5 To be sure, a
god’s parentage is one of the most important elements at a birth hymn’s
beginning. But at the same time its presence here can also be explained
on the grounds that until this point Hermes has not yet acquired any di-
vine honours for which to praise himself.
Hermes’ second performance (423–33) belongs to a different
genre, not hymnic but theogonic. At this point, Hermes’ divine status is
beyond doubt. This song too constitutes a new beginning as ()
(428, 429) indicates.6 This performance begins in a manner
reminiscent of Hesiod’s Theogony, from the Muses and their mother
Mnemosyne. Such an introduction is somewhat odd since as a god
Hermes should not need divine validation of his account like a mortal
bard.7 His song praises Gaia, a cosmic element, and the gods; likewise
Hesiod’s Theogony is essentially both a cosmogony and a theogony.
Hermes narrates each god’s birth and how they were allotted their re-
spective , their sphere of influence, !", i.e. ‘in order of
4 Notice the iterative % &! at 58.

5 Notice ' 9( φ)*( also at 58 (with n. ad loc.). On Maia’s role in myth, see 1n. and
Vergados (2011a, 17–19).
6 For forms of « as an introductory device in Greek poems, see Race (1992, 23) and
below, 428n.
7 For a bard’s inspiration from the Muses, see Murray (1981, esp. 89–90).
6 Introduction
seniority.’ This suggests that since Hermes is the last born of the Olym-
pians his theogony must end with his own birth and acquisition of di-
vine honours.8
At first glance, both songs appear to be similar in their intention:
Hermes’ hymn to himself is a clear instance of self-praise, while his
theogony seems to culminate in (hymnic) self-praise. We can, however,
detect a development in Hermes’ view of himself and his place within
the Olympian world. Taking into account the hierarchy of seniority
among the gods in his second song, Hermes inserts himself into the cos-
mic and divine order as a full member with equal status, which suggests
that by now his position and honours are secured.9 While his first song
was delivered for the purpose of his self-aggrandizement, his theogony
functions as a «, a gift of honour, to the gods whose stories he is
singing. Hermes’ first song was a « to himself, but his theogony is
offered as a « to all the deities praised.10
The two performances also differ in the young god’s ability to focus
on his theme. The first song reveals that Hermes has not yet completely
mastered the art of singing. He intends to deliver his own birth hymn,
yet he soon sings of Maia’s cave, her maids, and various objects located
in it (60–61). There is thus a shift in the subject-matter of his hymn: be-
ginning by praising divine figures (Zeus and Maia), he ends up celebra-
ting subordinate characters (the maids) or even inanimate objects. One
might justify their inclusion in Hermes’ hymn as a reference to the god’s
dwelling. However, we are explicitly told that Hermes’ thought wanders
while he is singing (62 λ ξ σ -, ξ φ !λ Ν))
, presumably thinking of Apollo’s cattle). We may take a step
further and suggest that this may be part of the poet’s strategy to re-
8 See Shelmerdine (1984, 205) and Clay Politics 139–40 who points out that “as hymn poetry
is coterminous with, and a continuation of, theogonic poetry, Hermes’ performance inevi-
tably ends with a Hymn to Hermes.”
9 Notice how Hermes’ characterization changes over the course of the poem: from a solitary
deity (168–72; 314 *)«), he becomes a member of the divine community (460–61,
551).
10 Hermes’ offering a geras of song to all the gods may be paralleled by the way he divides the
meat at the Alpheios. To each of the twelve portions he adds a ) «. This parallel
becomes even stronger if one takes the events of the Alpheios as a λ« !(, in which
the equal portions point to the participants’ equal status, rather than a (pseudo-) sacrifice.
For the idea of song as nourishment, cf. Pi. fr. 52f.127–28 = Pae. 6.127–28 ((*
Ν ). For the notion of a hymn as an offering to establish / «, see 579n.
mind us that his hero is an infant: consequently Hermes’ attention is

drawn to whatever happens to impress him at the moment. The same
strategy may be at play when Hermes meets the tortoise. Although he
had set out firmly in pursuit of Apollo’s cattle, when he saw the tortoise,
struck by amazement, he realized the benefit he could derive from it.
He thus postponed his quest and focused on his new Ν , as the
animal is aptly called.11
The theogony, on the other hand, is delivered in a completely diffe-
rent manner. The poet stresses more than once the idea of order and se-
quence in this song.12 Hermes performs a song that is clearly organized,
and his recitation receives the poet’s compliment *! at 433.13
The difference between the two songs (the first characterized by lack of
focus, while the second is delivered ‘in proper order’) suggests that by
this point Hermes has become a more skilled and knowledgeable per-
former of poetry.14
The issue of Hermes’ audience raises some interesting questions as
well. The first song is directed to no one else but Hermes himself. The
solitariness of this performance is particularly emphasized by the simile
that introduces it: the song is likened to the provocative jibes that
youths address to each other at banquets.15 Unlike this scene of playful
repartee, Hermes’ song does not have an addressee. The absence of an
audience precludes the possibility of a reward or simply praise of
Hermes as a bardic performer.16 One may compare Hermes’ first song
to Achilles’ lyre playing at Il. 9.186–91: both Hermes and Achilles sing
without an audience (Patroclus is simply waiting for Achilles to finish
his song),17 while their respective songs are problematic. Achilles
11 See p. 254–55 and Shelmerdine (1984, 207).

12 Cf. 428 and 429 () , and 431 !" λ ³« !.
13 For the formula *! in praising a bardic performance, cf. Od. 8.489.
14 On the progressive refinement of Hermes’ song, cf. Ford (1992, 28 n. 37).
15 Cf. 54–56 1 | π"(λ )9 (! "*) !. The simile can be
taken to refer to the risqué topic of Hermes’ hymn. But such a topic would not be un-
heard-of, judging by the ‘Lay of Ares and Aphrodite’ in Odyssey 8. Compton (2006, 43
n. 7) suggests that Hermes’ first song is satirical. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to
call it “tongue-in-cheek,” like the entire poem.
16 See Christopoulos (2007, 154).
17 Pace Nagy (1996, 72) for whom Patroclus is waiting for Achilles to leave off his song so
that he may start singing.
8 Introduction
should be performing, not singing of, ) $ ; likewise, it is not
Hermes’ job to praise himelf.
His theogony, however, has a targeted audience of one and a firm
purpose: to soothe Apollo’s anger and simultaneously advance
Hermes’ claims to divine honours. In fact, after Hermes’ performance,
he and Apollo exchange the lyre for the cattle since Hermes has ac-
quired from Zeus the so-called " 3 (516) as one of his di-
vine honours. One might even suggest that Hermes overstated in his
song the divine honours he anticipated. From Apollo’s words at 533–35
one may infer that Hermes included in his song prophecy as one of his
fields of activity, to which Apollo replies that no one else besides him-
self is allowed to reveal Zeus’s unerring will. In suggesting a specific
course of action to the listener, Hermes’ second song would then re-
semble Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaeus at Odyssey 14, an ρ« as
Homer calls it, whereby the disguised hero obliquely asks the swineherd
for a cloak by relating the story of a nocturnal ambush in which he had
left his cloak behind. If this is the case, Hermes’ theogony runs contrary
to an important characteristic of Homeric bardic performances. Bardic
narratives are normally disinterested, in the sense that they do not (at
least overtly) aim at manipulating their audience, while other narratives
within Homeric epic serve a specific purpose.18 They may answer a spe-
cific question (as for instance Odysseus’ apologoi); genealogies aim at
intimidating an opponent in battle; or, like Odysseus’ ρ«, they may
reveal the speaker’s not-so-veiled request. Similarly, Hermes specifi-
cally aims with his song at enhancing his own status by prompting
Apollo to strike a deal with him (" 3 ).
Hermes’ performances then show the young god’s maturation and
his admission into the Olympian community.19 Whereas in his hymn to
18 For this distinction, see Scodel (1998) who observes that “narrative outside the frame of epic
performance normally either answers a request for information or serves an explicit paradig-
matic function. It is occasional and specifically motivated, serving a specific communicative
need within the social relationship of speaker and hearer(s). Bardic narrative, by contrast,
ordinarily does not seek to manipulate its audience; it is essentially disinterested.” (p. 172)
19 Johnston (2002, 124) notes Hermes’ maturation over the course of the poem and places
great emphasis on the cattle theft as a means of Hermes’ initiation into the divine world
which affects the contents of his songs: the first song, performed before the raid, praises
Maia and the cave; the second song, performed after the raid, has as its subject the entire
pantheon. Croci (1977–78, 183–84) considers the difference between Hermes’ two songs to
be one of 5« vs. $)7.
himself he is exclusively preoccupied with his own identity, his second

song shows a marked difference in the way he views himself: instead of
delivering a purely self-centred song, he performs one that indicates a
more general awareness of the cosmic and divine order. The issue at
stake is not to assert his divine status any more, but to show that he be-
longs to the Olympian establishment and that his position therein is
firm. For Hermes music and song are a means to an end, and appropri-
ately by the end of the poem he hands over to Apollo the lyre that had
been instrumental in allowing him to obtain his rightful honours.
2.2 Hermes’ Songs as Mise en Abyme

Mise en abyme (also referred to as récit speculaire or ‘mirror text’) is a
literary term inspired from heraldry. Its precise definition has been an
object of controversy among literary critics, and sometimes scholars
disagree on whether a given text should be considered as mise en abyme
or not.20 L. Dällenbach (1989) offers a typology and its application on
the French Nouveau Roman. He defines mise en abyme as “any internal
mirror that reflects the whole of the narrative in simple, repeated, or
‘specious’ (or paradoxical) duplication.”21 Simple duplication – by far
the most frequent type – occurs when the internal narrative resembles
the enclosing one. The repeated or infinite duplication can be best
exemplified by a visual example, i.e. the old Quaker Oats box or the so-
called Droste effect.22 Finally, paradoxical duplication occurs when the
mirror narrative encloses the work that encloses it. This mirroring,
which disrupts the linear progression of the narrative, might be called
“prospective,” “retrospective,” or “retro-prospective,” depending on its
20 Cf. in this respect the treatment of the Lay of Ares and Aphrodite by Létoublon (1983) and
Rinon (2006).
21 Dällenbach (1989, 43). For a criticism of Dällenbach’s views, see Bal (1978), Létoublon
(1983), and Ron (1987); for a semiotic approach to the term mise en abyme, see J. White
(2001). For an application of this narratological device to Demodocus’ songs in Odyssey 8,
see Rinon (2006); to Greek drama, see Dobrov (2001); to the Aeneid, see Fowler (2000); to
Biblical narrative, see Bosworth (2003), who offers a review of the relevant scholarship on
p. 36–90.
22 On the “Droste effect,” see J. White (2001, 37). Droste, a Dutch cocoa manufacturer from
Haarlem, use on their tins the image of a farm girl, holding on a tray a cup and a cocoa tin
that represent an identical farm girl holding on a tray a cup and a cocoa tin … This dupli-
cation theoretically continues ad infinitum.
10 Introduction
temporal orientation. Scholars have also attempted to identify textual

markers that signal the presence of a mise en abyme. These markers
include words suggesting a simile or analogy between the embedded
and the framing narrative, homonymy between the character of the
main and the embedded narrative, homonymy between the titles of the
embedded and the enclosing narrative, or repetition of the setting and
combination of characters. Finally, mise en abyme is not confined to
repeating parts of the main narrative but may sometimes focus on the
production of the literary work itself and on its composer or addressee.
It may thus be a powerful metapoetic means for the composer to sug-
gest possible ways of interpreting his own work. Hermes’ two embedded
performances, besides describing the development of the god’s cha-
racter, can give us insights concerning the poet’s views on his own art.
Hermes’ first song is a “hymn to Hermes” within the actual
Homeric Hymn to Hermes. The creator of the embedded song, Hermes,
is the hero of the main narrative. This song belongs to the same genre as
the enveloping text, i.e. hymnic. As mentioned above, Hermes’ hymn is
introduced in a way that reminds us of other poems that belong to the
genre of the Homeric (or rhapsodic) Hymns ($φ + accusative), but it
differs from the way the enveloping narrative begins (E
8
M! ).). Although this may seem a trivial variation of epic formu-
lae, it allows the poet to show that he knows alternative ways of begin-
ning a poem, both of which he employs at different points in his Hymn.
This indicates a poet who is aware of, and reflects on, the conventions of
his traditional art.
However, besides this initial difference one can detect certain im-
portant similarities between the two hymns. Hermes mentions his par-
entage from Zeus and Maia, as the poet does in verse 1. He emphasizes
his parents’ ongoing love-affair: The iterative % &! of 58 picks up
the iterative forms of 7 and 8 (!! and … 3/). This set of
repetitions emphasizes the duration of Zeus’ and Maia’s affair, as we
have already seen. But it also accomplishes something more important:
It enables the poet to validate his own account of the god’s story. By
presenting Hermes as employing the same themes when praising him-
self as the poet did earlier at the beginning of the actual Hymn, the poet
suggests that the god approves of his strategy in praising him: Hermes
himself would sing his own hymn in a similar manner. In this way the
poet creates a divine precedent for (part of) the main narrative which he
incorporates in the Homeric Hymn. We are led to believe that the poet
provides us with the correct version of the god’s story, a version san-
ctioned, as it were, by the god himself. This is all the more important,
since h.Herm. diverges from most other versions we possess and omits
details that other accounts mention (e.g. Hermes’ theft of Apollo’s bow
and quiver recounted by Alcaeus or the name of the informer, Battus,
probably present in the Hesiodic version). It also tells a story about
Apollo’s acquisition of the lyre and the gift of prophecy that differs sub-
stantially from what we hear in h.Apol.23
The poet’s pride in his version of Hermes’ story that I posit here is
not unparalleled. One need only consider the beginning of the first
Homeric Hymn to Dionysus (1–7).24 Having mentioned various versions
of Dionysus’ birth story, which he considers incorrect and dismisses as
outright lies, the rhapsode goes on to present his own version, which we
are invited to consider as the only reliable one.
We can also examine Hermes’ first song as a mirror text from the
point of view of the audience as well. As we have seen, Hermes’ hymn
to himself is likened to the provocative words that young men exchange
at banquets (55–56). Not only does this simile link the activity of
the youths ( !) with Hermes’ personality (he is a «
«, as Apollo acknowledges at 336–38) but it also functions as
yet another mirror in the text. If, as it has been suggested, the symposion
(public or private) was one of the possible performative settings for a
poem such as h.Herm.,25 then the simile preceding Hermes’ song ac-
quires additional force: not only is the hero of the main narrative pre-
sent in the reflective part, but the audience of the actual Hymn to
Hermes (i.e. the external audience) can “see” themselves, as it were, in
the mirror narrative as well.
23 See below, p. 70–73.

24 ¹ ξ : ) !#, ¹ # #I )
!!9( | φ!#, ¹ # N<)
, « -
φ, | ¹ !# # #A)φ) ) "7 | !( )( :λ -
1) , | Ν)) # >7"9 (! Ν< ! )! ! | 5*α ! # 3 …
See the pertinent discussion in Pratt (1993, 22–33).
25 See Depew (2000, 63–64). Performance at a banquet setting (the dinner of the !)
was already suggested by Eitrem (1906, 282). These ! were young men who
dined on the fourth day of each month, a day thought to be Hermes’ birthday and associ-
ated with Aphrodite Pandemos as well; see Arnott on Alex. 260. For singing hymns at the
symposia, cf. Xenoph. 1.13–14 and perhaps E. Med. 190–94. The Hymn could also have
been performed at an agon mousikos.
12 Introduction
The simile of 55–56 is not the only reference to sympotic practice.

At 424–25, when Hermes attempts to appease his brother, he moves to-
wards Apollo’s left side and performs his second song. Commentators
generally suggest that Hermes gives Apollo the place of honour, which
is certainly a valid interpretation. But there is more to it than that. After
Hermes completes his performance, he hands over the lyre to Apollo,
who is located on his right and takes over the lyre playing. This enacts
the sympotic practice of passing around the lyre (or a myrtle branch)
from left to right, on which occasion whoever received the instrument
(or the myrtle) had to sing. In other words, Hermes acts out the <
3 that Apollo professes to be one of his main interests at 454. Thus
both musical performances of Hermes are accompanied by sympotic
references.26
Hermes’ theogony is a mirror text effecting what Dällenbach calls
“paradoxical duplication.” Since Hermes narrates the creation of the
world, the birth of the gods, and the distribution of their honours, his
theogony must also contain the story of Apollo, who happens to be his
audience, and must end with the events of Hermes’ own life, including
his lyre playing and his actions in the Hymn. Since it narrates how each
god was allotted his , the theogony may also mirror the final sec-
tion of the Hymn which enumerates Hermes’ divine honours. It thus
functions as a “retro-prospective mise en abyme,” since it recapitulates
the earlier history of the world and the gods (including Hermes’ own
life) while looking ahead to the poem’s ending.
Like our poet, Hermes begins his second song with Mnemosyne
and the Muses. The Hesiodic character of Hermes’ second performance
is not merely a reflex of traditional diction and practice. It is corro-
borated by the very function of Hermes’ music, as a means to calm
Apollo’s anger over his stolen cattle. At Th. 81–103 Hesiod describes
the effect of the Muses’ gifts to the kings and poets. There we learn that
the bard who is favoured by the Muses has the power to divert the audi-
ence’s cares through his song. Just as the king solves disputes with his
pleasing words ( φ«), so the poet, too, causes anxieties to be
forgotten and distracts the listeners’ mind ( ).
Hermes’ second song has precisely this power, as 417 indicates. At
434 we are told that Apollo is seized by an irresistible longing as he
26 See Manuwald (2002, 161).

listens to Hermes’ performance. By 438 he seems to have forgotten

about their quarrel and suggests that the two of them can solve their
dispute amicably. His mind then has been literally distracted, as he for-
gets the reason of their argument. Now he wonders about the nature of
Hermes’ art and wants a share in it. The situation is reversed: while ear-
lier it was Hermes who wanted a share of Apollo’s possessions, now it is
Apollo who wants a share of Hermes’ art. Apollo’s reaction to Hermes’
theogony shows that the poet of h.Herm. espouses similar views on the
power of song and poetry to those found in the Theogony.27
Hermes succeeds in soothing Apollo’s anger and diverting his at-
tention from the stolen cattle by instilling into his heart a different kind
of care that makes him forget the previous one. As we hear at 447,
Hermes’ song is a ! $(/ )@ (‘a song that causes
insurmountable cares’; cf. n. ad loc.). The nature of these )«
can be gleaned from 449 (Cφ !1( λ 3 λ D 8)
as well as from 434 (3 « … $7/«). By describing the effects of
Hermes’ song on Apollo, the poet implicitly suggests to his audience
the way in which he wishes them to receive his own song. Hermes’ sec-
ond song establishes a parallelism between Hermes as a performer of
hymnic poetry and our poet as a performer of h.Herm. If the god’s song
causes wonder in his audience, the poet’s performance lays claim to a
similar effect.28
Hermes’ words at 475–88 support the poet’s implicit claim. There
the divine child describes to his elder brother how he should handle
the lyre. Apollo is advised to take the ‘clear-sounding companion’
()1φ ' () to the banquet. He is told that whoever ‘que-
( 483) with the appropriate knowledge and prepa-
stions’ her (< 9
ration, to him she will give pleasant replies. But whoever approaches
her without proper experience and ‘questions’ her ( 9 ( 487) viol-
ently will receive a vain and ill-sounding response. These words are
spoken by the character of Hermes, but it is of course the poet (possibly
singing to the lyre) who is actually pronouncing them. They serve two
functions: they are Hermes’ explanations in the music lesson to his
27 Cf. the comments on )<« on p. 141.

28 For Hermes’ second performance, see Vamvouri-Ruffy (2004, 88–91) who emphasizes the
similarities between Hermes’ second song and h.Herm. and proposes that the poet wishes
that his song achieve the same effect as Hermes’ embedded performance.
14 Introduction
brother, but at the same time these words are the poet’s statement about
his own /( and !φ. In these lines, as L. Radermacher already
realized, it is the poet who speaks through Hermes. In other words, the
poet’s voice merges with that of his hero.29
This merging of the poet’s and the god’s voice may be a generic
characteristic of the major Homeric Hymns. It has been detected at
h.Dem. 406–33 where the poet speaks at the same time both in the voice
of the character Persephone (to Demeter) and in his own voice to his
audience: the character Persephone gives an account of the poem’s
story to two different audiences simultaneously.30 Eva Stehle observes
the same poetic technique at h.Apol. 363–74.31 Likewise, Aphrodite’s
speech at h.Aphr. 200–238 contains a series of examples revealing her
power. Lines 200–238 in particular are a mythological account in the
third person that could be uttered by both the goddess (explaining to
Anchises why he is not going to become immortal and ageless) as well
as the poet (explaining to his audience why the age of heroes has come
to an end). In the same manner, Hermes’ words (especially at 482–88)
are directed at two audiences. On the one hand, the god’s self-praise for
his performance is directed to an internal audience (Apollo); but at the
same time, the poet speaks to the external audience, who are in fact li-
stening to h.Herm., and his words constitute self-praise for his poetic
creation.32 Given that the narrator in the Homeric Hymns tends to be
self-effacing (h.Apol. is an exception),33 this identification is a particu-
larly clever way for the poet to suggest to his audience how to receive his
poetic creation.
29 See Radermacher 157.

30 See Suter (2005, 34–35).
31 See Stehle (1997, 192–93) who remarks (on p. 193) that “in lines 363–69 the bard speaks as
Apollo is speaking to the snake, but he also directs his words qua pun straight to the audi-
ence (for the words are not a pun for the snake). Then in lines 372–4, speaking as the bard,
he tells the audience directly that Apollo’s words are in fact the source of the name Pytho.”
See also Capponi (2003, 19–20, 32).
32 This identification is hinted at by Shelmerdine (1984, 208) who remarks that “here [sc. in
Hermes’ first song] we can see in the myth a mirroring of the hymn’s actual performance, as
the singer glorifies the very instrument on which he plays, and the poet simultaneously ce-
lebrates his own art.” The identification between poet and god becomes more explicit after
Hermes’ second song.
33 See Morrison (2007, 46–48).
2.3 Semata, Poetry, and Prophecy

Throughout the Hymn Hermes appears as the creator, manipulator,
and interpreter of signs.34 His very birth coincides with the creation of
$ !( 3 (12) and thus acquires the moment of a !
. Signifi-
cantly, the first word the new-born god utters in the poem – and indeed
in his life, according to the mythological narrative offered in the
Hymn – is !1"). In h.Herm. 30 !1") does not simply desi-
gnate a ‘token of identification’ but borders on the realm of divi-
nation.35 Hermes’ encounter with the tortoise is not merely a chance
event, but has a special significance as the god immediately realizes.
While one may only see an animal, Hermes “reads” into it two func-
tions: while alive, the tortoise will be a charm against sudden attacks of
disease or magic; but transformed by Hermes’ « it becomes an
instrument and the token (!
) of exchange that will seal his rela-
tionship of φ)*(« with Apollo (509), a token whose value will be
fifty head of cattle. In other words, Hermes realizes from the very be-
ginning of his life that even in a chance encounter there may be more
than meets the eye: the /)« is not only an animal, but an omen, a
!
that needs to be interpreted, and an object of economic and
transactional value.
Hermes is also capable of creating misleading !7. This is seen
at 75–86 where he fashions a set of sandals whose tracks do not re-
semble those of any known creature, as Apollo discovers at 219–26.
This set of footprints is accompanied by the reversal of the cattle tracks.
Together, these two tricks create a complicated set of !7 which
Apollo is unable to decipher. It is only through his own art of divination
34 On !7 in h.Herm., see Steiner (1994, 40–49); on !7 in general, see Holmberg
(1997), Foley (1997) who emphasizes their metonymic character, and Nagy (1990a,
202–22). Hermes’ manipulation of !7 is related to his nature as trickster. As Holl-
mann (2005, 279) points out, “to a large degree the trickster’s skill lies in the use and abuse
of signs of various types.” See also Leduc (2001, 26–27). Mieke Bal (1988, 136–37), start-
ing from Umberto Eco’s definition of a sign as “anything that can be used in order to lie,”
observes that “tricksters are … morally, religiously, philosophically ambivalent creatures.
This ambivalence characterizes their being. Deception is what characterizes their behavior,
hence their narrative function. This function is, then, to exemplify semiosis in its central
characteristic. Seen in this light, tricksters function as a mise en abyme or metasemiotic fi-
gure” (emphasis in the original).
35 See Struck (2004, 90–96).
16 Introduction
(the omen of 213–14) that Apollo discovers the thief’s identity. But
Apollo’s art seems to be of no help when reading the !7 created by
the god of thieves.
Hermes at times conceals !7 as well. At 134–37 he sees to it
that no trace of the portions of meat remain so that nobody may be able
to tell exactly what he had done at the Alpheios. At 140 he extinguishes
the fire by scattering sand on the glowing embers. The only trace he in-
tends to leave behind are the cow-hides, which are indeed what Apollo
sees at 403–408. He is led to wondering how an infant like Hermes
could slaughter (
!) two cows. Again, Apollo is misled by
Hermes’ !7.
We can detect Hermes’ concern for !7 also in his manipu-
lation of proverbial wisdom.36 One example should suffice: the proverb
at 36 is ambiguous. It may appear as a general injunction to stay
at home because it is safe there, but we quickly find out that once the
tortoise enters the cave (= F from the god’s perspective), it will be
") for Hermes, but /)* for the animal. Hermes’ re-contex-
tualization of this proverbial phrase blurs an important parameter: in
respect to whom should the terms ") and /)* be under-
stood? The hidden, underlying meaning of an utterance may sometimes
be a matter of life and death. In this case it is also a rather sadistic joke,
typical of children who can be cruel to animals.
Hermes’ (and the poet’s) language can sometimes be opaque. The
Hymn offers some examples of riddles (, φ), utterances
whose meaning is concealed and needs to be discovered through inter-
pretation. At 38 we encounter a reflection of the dum viva fui tacui, mor-
tua dulce cano riddle. At 295–96 the poet describes Hermes’ flatulence
in riddling terms, μ ( … | )7 ! μ« 3 ,
$!) $)@(.37 Finally, Apollo’s description of the ‘Bee-
maidens’ at 552–63 is also a riddle (cf. n. ad loc.). This riddling lan-
guage, shared by the poet and his character, invites the audience to dis-
cover, if they can, the underlying meaning of these words.
It will come as no surprise then that the Hymn’s style is often diffi-
cult, its language at times unusual and riddling, and its narrative dis-
36 On the subject, see Tzifopoulos (2000).

37 These verses also constitute parody of (ominous) !7; see 296n.
continuous.38 But what is the point of this obscurity? Hermes’ remarks

at 475–88 may help here: together with Apollo’s speech at 533–66 they
establish a parallel between the handling of the lyre and the operation
of an oracle.39 We have already seen that Hermes uses <
‘question, enquire’ to designate the process of performing on the lyre.
This somewhat odd expression is certainly deliberate, as it occurs twice
within five lines (483 and 487). But why did the poet choose this ex-
pression? One may think of the epic poet asking the Muse to recount
the story he is about to sing. At Il. 1.8 the poet in fact poses a direct
question (« !φξ 3 <( /!;) the answer to
which is the epic poem that follows. One may also think of the poet’s in-
vocations of and questions to the Muses within the poem when he is
about to perform a tour de force of memory, as for instance in recount-
ing a catalogue.40 In these cases, the subsequent narrative is validated as
authoritative since it is the response of the Muses who are eyewitnesses
to the events the poet is about to narrate. This is also the implication of
Hermes’ beginning his theogony from Mnemosyne, the mother of the
Muses.
Hermes’ explanation of how to handle the lyre acquires additional
force when examined in conjunction with Apollo’s ensuing speech and
especially his description of the operation of the ‘Bee-oracle’ (558–66),
a riddling description as is suggested in the note ad loc. The two pas-
sages are similar to each other. The process of consulting the ‘Bee-
oracle’ is also termed . As with the consultation of the lyre,
there are two possible outcomes. If the bees happen to consume honey,
then they are willing to reveal the truth to the enquirer.41 If however
they are deprived of honey, their response will be lies and confused
noise. Hermes also mentioned two possibilities while describing the
38 Clay Politics 102 observes that “[t]he erratic progress of the poet’s account with its abrupt
leaps and discontinuities may be only partially due to textual lacunae, for it appears to
offer a perfect vehicle for conveying the restless movement of the god and his shifting
thought and motivations.” Cf. also Richardson (2010, 23–24).
39 The parallels were already pointed out by Eitrem (1906, 280–81).
40 Cf. Il. 11.218, 4.508, 16.112; Hes. Th. 114; Minton (1960) and A. Lenz (1980, 27–37).
41 Giuman (2008, 137) compares this with Hes. Th. 27–28 (F 51 )) ) -
1! ², | F # σ# ) $)( ( 1!!) and reminds us that ambi-
guity is characteristic of oracular discourse that establishes a point of contact between the
human world and the world of the gods.
18 Introduction
lyre: if approached with the correct preparation, it (or she, since the lyre
is a )1φ« ' () ‘teaches’ things pleasing to the mind; otherwise,
it emits shrill and ill-sounding tones. Apollo’s outline of how the ‘Bee-
oracle’ operates resembles also his earlier description of his own oracle
at Delphi (541–49): whoever approaches the oracle with a correct under-
standing of the preparatory omens will not be deceived by the god; but
those who question the oracle (again, < 547) trusting in vain
omens will not receive a satisfactory answer, though the god will keep
their presents. The 5)*, ‘vainly (i.e. falsely) speaking omens’ of
546 remind one of the lyre’s response to the inexperienced player (5
))& 488). The poet thus suggests a general resemblance between
the production of song and music through the lyre and obtaining pre-
cise knowledge about the future by consulting an oracle. In both cases
the process is one of (<) , while the enquirer’s success depends
on his correct preparation (i.e. training in how to play the instrument,
understanding of preliminary omens, or offering the proper food to the
‘Bee-maidens’). To these similarities one may also add the parallel con-
structions. Both the account of how to play the lyre and how to ap-
proach oracles are introduced by Ρ« («) Ν / χ« clauses, some of
which occur in the same sedes (482–88, 543–49).42
The examination of particular terms corroborates this overall struc-
tural resemblance. First, the pronouncements of the ‘Bee-maidens’ are
said to have the ability of at 559. This is the same word that the
poet used when relating Hermes’ theogony at 427. The term
has a wide range of meanings: accomplish, ratify, or even rule. Benve-
niste traces its semantic development from the word for ‘head’ ( ),
indicating divine sanction by an affirmative nod of the head (usually
Zeus’s). From divine authorization it subsequently came to signify also
political authorization, i.e. that of the kings.43 Benveniste interprets
at 427 as ‘promote into existence’ and ‘predict’ at 559, but De-
tienne connects the two occurrences in our poem more closely.44 In his
42 The similarity between the handling of the lyre and the questioning of an oracle has been
recently re-examined by Adorjáni (2011, 142–46), who associates it to Pindar’s poetry and
considers it a confirmation of the communis opinio on the Hymn’s composition at the end
of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th c. BC.
43 See Benveniste (1969, II 39–42).
44 See Detienne (1973, 70–74).
view, Hermes with his song “‘realizes’ the immortal gods and the dark
earth (i.e. ‘makes them real’),” while the bees’ contributes to
the events’ fulfillment, since as Detienne remarks “oracular speech … is
part of [an event’s] realization.” The use of for the bees’
prophetic activity is by no means an isolated instance. It is found also in
other contexts suggesting divination; e.g. Penelope’s prophetic dream at
Od. 19.567 or at E. Ion 464. Given that Hermes is the last born of the
Olympians, his song brings the story of the gods to completion. In ad-
dition, in both cases we are dealing with an authoritative utterance.
thus constitutes another link between poetic and oracular
speech.
The ability of the ‘Bee-maidens’ to deliver truthful utterances dep-
ends on their consumption of honey. Honey occasionally appears as the
nourishment of the gods (e.g. Call. Jov. 49), and it was sometimes
treated as equivalent to ambrosia and nectar, the divine nourishment
proper.45 It is also associated with poetic speech: a song’s sweetness is
often compared to honey (sometimes with a pun on ) and )«)
while the comparison of the poet to a bee is a favorite image.46 Honey
serves as yet another link between the oracular speech practiced by the
‘Bee-maidens’ and the poetic speech practiced by Hermes – as well as
the poet of h.Herm.
By establishing this similarity and by laying particular emphasis on
the need for proper preparation both for eliciting the lyre’s responses
and for consulting and understanding an oracle, the poet implies that
poetic and oracular speech are of a similar type. Such an understanding
of poetry, although not explicitly stated elsewhere, is not foreign to ar-
chaic literature. Although we shall have to wait until Plato’s Ion for an
explicit comparison between the poet and the seer,47 traces of this con-
45 See Roscher (1883, 25). For bees and honey and their significance in ancient thought and
literature, see Robert-Tornow (1893), Cook (1895), Waszink (1974), and Scheinberg
(1979).
46 See the abundant evidence from Greek, Roman, and Vedic literature collected in Schein-
berg (1979, 22–25); cf. also Bounas (2008, 72–75).
47 Cf. Pl. Ion 533e–534e where the poet and the seer are treated as a single category of people
experiencing the same kind of and !!*« that enables them to compose
poetry or to divine; and of course Pl. Phdr. 244a–245a for the $ (including divination
and poetry) that derive from . But see Finnegan (1977, 207–10) against the genera-
lization that all oral poets have affinities with prophetic figures.
20 Introduction
nection appear in archaic literature.48 Already Hesiod gives us a

glimpse of such a view, when he recounts in the Theogony how the
Muses handed him a scepter and breathed into him Cκ ! so
that he might sing # !!* * # *, which resembles the
knowledge a seer possesses.49 Pindar and Bacchylides also reflect the
correlation of poetry/song and divination.50 Significantly, by the end of
the Homeric Hymn to Hermes both Hermes and Apollo are endowed
with poetic as well as divinatory power.
But there is more. Homer calls Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaeus, by
which he asks the swineherd to provide him with a cloak, an ρ«. He-
siod too calls the story of the hawk and the nightingale in his Works and
Days (202–12) an ρ«.51 This ρ« is directed to the kings who under-
stand (φ ! λ C«, 202), and the implication is that in addi-
tion to the fable’s surface meaning that everyone is able to grasp, the
kings, wise as they are, can decode additional underlying messages as
well. The notion of speaking to those few who are able to perceive the
hidden meanings of the words (the !, φ «, or $)
has parallels in epinician poetry and Theognis.52
The Hymn develops a parallelism between poetic and oracular
speech, and archaic literature presents types of utterances that, like or-
acles, can have an additional sense or multiple meanings not accessible
to everyone (fables, ρ, or riddling statements and the manipulation
of !7 as in h.Herm.). The history of Greek literary criticism points
to a particular group of critics who applied to poetry the analytical and
conceptual framework used in approaching oracular utterances and
developed what came to be known as allegorical interpretation. It is
often thought that this kind of interpretation was defensive in nature,
aiming at exonerating poets from accusations levelled against them by
48 See Katz and Volk (2000, 124).

49 Cf. Il. 1.70 (on Calchas’ knowledge). See also Scheinberg (1979, 21–22).
50 Cf. Pi. N. 9.50, frr. 52f.5–6, 75.13, 94a.5–6, 150.1, Bacch. 9.2–6. Note too that the poet and
the seer are associated with each other (as demioergoi) already at Od. 17.382–85; cf. Dillery
(2005, 176–78, 185) for the poet assuming the persona of a seer.
51 For the term, cf. Archil. 174.1, 185.1, Call. fr. 194.6, Theoc. 14.43. West on Hes. Op. 202
defines it as “a fable or other story with an implied message in it for the hearer.” Cf. Ver-
denius (1962): a “tale containing an ulterior purpose.” On ρ, see also Nagy (1999,
235–41), who emphasizes their exclusivity.
52 Cf. Pi. O. 2.83–85, Bacch. 3.85, Thgn. 681–82; cf. Ford (2002, 79).
critics such as Xenophanes or Heraclitus. Theagenes of Rhegium (mid

6th c. BC) is commonly regarded as an exponent of defensive allegore-
sis: he explained the real meaning of the theomachy in the Iliad
(20.67ff.) as a battle between natural elements, presumably answering
to the Homeric detractors who considered the theomachy as unbeco-
ming to the gods.53 But Peter Struck has emphasized that not all allego-
rical interpretation was defensive.54 And texts like the ρ« in Hesiod’s
Works and Days, which is not a response to criticism, point to the possi-
bility of a different approach to allegoresis, a positive one.55 This ap-
proach introduces into poetry the idea of a surface and a deeper (or
underlying) meaning that only the few knowledgeable ones can decode.
Terms deriving from the root of ! were prominently used in
this type of interpretation, and, at later stage, the terms K* and
!1"). The underlying notion is that poetic, like oracular language
is (deliberately?) obscure and requires special skill and effort in order to
be decoded and understood. A prime example of allegoresis is the fa-
mous Derveni papyrus (late 5th c.) which explicitly states 3! ξ [(
« π] *(!« | [ ]λ $ @[«] []@(« [ ] [#O φL]«
C[μ]« | [] !# [] ) ), [ ][] ξ |
[]) (P.Derv. col. vii 4–7, ‘poetry is some strange art and riddling
for men, even though Orpheus himself did not wish to utter riddles that
would be the object of contention, but rather (to utter) important
things in a riddling garb’).56
53 For Theagenes’ interpretation, see fr. 2 D.-K. The commentator who cites this interpre-
tation considers it a )1!« $μ
« )<«. See also Lamberton (1986, 31–32) for earlier
views on Theagenes and his putative connection to Pythagoreanism; further, Buffière
(1956) and Ford (1999). Tate (1927) suggested that even before Theagenes (whom he con-
sidered a grammarian), Pherecydes had understood Homer allegorically; but cf. Schibli
(1990, 99 n. 54, 117 n. 30).
54 See Struck (2004); the argument is presented more concisely in Struck (2005). See also the
discussion in Ford (2002, 66–80), Struck (2004, 26–29), and Richardson (1975) for alle-
goresis in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. The argument for the existence of positive allegori-
cal interpretation was already made by Tate (1929, 142) and was further elaborated in Tate
(1934). For the beginnings of allegory, see Ramelli and Lucchetta (2004, 49–58).
55 The term positive is obviously artificial, coined in opposition to the negative or defensive
allegoresis.
56 West and Struck independently supplied [ κ π] at line 4; see Struck (2004, 31–33).
The text of the papyrus is cited from Kouremenos-Parássoglou-Tsantsanoglou (2006).
22 Introduction
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes seems at times to hint at such an

understanding of the verbal art. By that I do not intend that we are sup-
posed to read the Hymn allegorically, as has been done in the past,57 but
that there is a certain affinity between the poet’s conception of his art
and the mindset of those ancient critics whose efforts led to the estab-
lishment of allegorical reading.
The poem leaves us with a taste of uncertainty and unease. What be-
gins as an amusing and entertaining poem recounting the pranks of the
one-day old Hermes ends on a serious note with a discussion of pro-
phecy and with a sombre reminder of the god’s deception of men. This
discussion however is not gratuitous. Verbally and thematically linked
with the preceding discussion on poetry, it emphasizes the gulf that
separates human and divine knowledge and implies that humans, un-
less /9
( λ !φ) !, will not be able to distinguish true
from false. In the end, this comparison points to the polyvalence of lit-
erature and song: there is not one definitive meaning which one must
decipher; rather various interpretations are possible, whose degree of
validity depends on the experience, imagination, competence, in short
on the /( and !φ of the reader or listener.
2.4 Hermes’ Deceptive Language

Hermes’ association with language and speech is an important facet of
his divine prerogatives,58 and naturally speech is an important topic in
h.Herm. Significantly, Hermes’ rhetoric does not change in a linear
fashion throughout the poem, and it allows room for ambiguity and
doubt, both core characteristics of Hermes’ divine persona.59
57 E.g. by Brown or Graefe. On Brown see below, p. 136–37. Graefe (1963) argued that
Hermes and Apollo’s reconciliation was an allusion to the alliance between Themistocles
and Cimon; he saw a reflection of Themistocles’ cunning in Hermes’ clever acts, while he
considered Apollo’s gifts to symbolize Cimon’s lavishness. He consequently dated the
poem to 475 BC.
58 Cf. Hes. Op. 79–80. Gera (2003, 115–18) discusses the evidence for Hermes as the inventor
of language and speech. Plato Cra. 407e associates Hermes and ' (1«, but modern lin-
guistics contests the etymological link between the two words; cf. Szemerényi (1974, 150),
who derives ' (1« from the Semitic targumānu, whence English dragoman; see also
Beekes, s.v. ' (1«.
59 Cf. Clay Politics 106 “persuasive, seductive, and deceptive, [Hermes’ rhetoric] is characte-
ristically ambiguous and riddling, concealing as much as revealing, and abounding in
Hermes’ deceptive rhetoric can already be seen in his first words, his
address to the tortoise (30–38), which oscillates between childish and
adult speech. To be sure, nowhere in the Hymn does Hermes use baby
talk or terms of endearment. The reason is perhaps to be sought in the
rigidity of the epic genre: epic diction tends to incorporate other genres
or registers of speech by homogenizing them.60 While Hermes’ vocabu-
lary is not childish at all, the overall effect of his language may be in-
tended to reflect the speaker’s age. He uses short, choppy sentences
which sometimes lack connectives. Three out of nine lines have a minor
internal pause at the bucolic diaeresis, marked in our editions with a
comma (30–32), while four lines contain a stronger internal pause (32,
34, 35, 38). Necessary enjambement occurs only once at 38, while all
other instances of enjambement belong to the progressive/unperiodic
type. The overall structure is paratactic, without a single instance of a
subordinate clause. Hermes’ wonder at the tortoise, which is for him an
Ν (32), also supports this effect of childishness.
On the semantic level, however, Hermes’ address to the tortoise is
far from childish. Line 31 foreshadows the tortoise’s fate and envisions
her future role as the companion of the feast. More than a simple fore-
shadowing, this is Hermes’ first prophecy. The young god is able to
look ahead and has already conceived of a means by which to settle his
imminent confrontation with Apollo. Hermes furthermore appears to
be surprised at the discovery of this Q , a lucky find proverbially
thought to be sent by Hermes himself. He thus cleverly turns the sender
into a recipient. Similarly, in his attempt to persuade the tortoise
to enter his cave, the young god re-contextualizes a proverb also found
in the Works and Days 365 (F ") ρ, λ ")" μ
μ 1 (φ, 36; cf. above, p. 16). Whereas Hesiod uses this proverb
double and ulterior meanings.” Pratt (1993, 55–72) discusses the affinities between the
poet and the trickster. The poets’ emphasis on the artificiality of poetry goes naturally
hand in hand with their becoming more conscious of their art. The realization that the
poet may have affinities to the liar brings poetry’s fictionality into greater prominence.
This is already present in the Odyssey: Odysseus the liar takes on the role of the poet when
he narrates his Apologoi. But this realization is taken to an extreme in h.Herm., where the
god of liars is presented as the inventor of the lyre and the hymnic genre.
60 Callimachus’ Artemis in Dian. 6 uses Ν only once, and the remainder of her speech re-
sembles regular adult talk. For baby-talk in antiquity, see Golden (1995) and O. Thomas
(2010).
24 Introduction
in a section of advice pertaining to the management of one’s wealth,

Hermes introduces this expression into a different context. It appears at
first that he gives the tortoise a piece of advice, namely that staying in-
side is safer than being outdoors. But the tortoise is in a sense always in-
side its home, while as an animal that lives on the mountains (R !
&)@! 33) it has no place in the home of a god.61 At any rate, the dis-
tinction between inside (= safety) and outside (= harm) is blurred, and
Hermes’ speech reveals both his childish amazement and his skilful
ability to exploit the ambiguities of language.62
Hermes’ defense speeches reveal a similar situation.63 In his
first reply to Apollo (261–77), eleven lines end with a verb in vcc
rhythm, six of them preceded by a trochaic word. Connectives are again
missing in some instances (263–64, 269, 273). We meet repetitive word-
patterns at 263–64 and 266–67 (with alliteration). Our attention is
called to 263–64 when Apollo repeats these lines almost verbatim be-
fore Zeus (363–64), presumably also mimicking Hermes’ tone. We may
also add that at 277 Hermes claims that he does not even know what
‘those cows’ are, something we might expect from a child. The charac-
teristics noted here may again be the poet’s attempt to convey the im-
pression of child-like speech. This would accord with the argument in
this speech, an argument from probability: none of the immortals
would believe Apollo’s accusations because as a newly-born infant
Hermes is unlikely to have committed what Apollo accuses him of.64
Hermes’ speech in Zeus’s “court” too exhibits similar stylistic phe-
nomena (368–86). Five strong internal pauses (376, 380–82, 386) occur
within the twelve lines (375–86) in which Hermes argues for his inno-
cence by emphasizing his young age, using the argument from pro-
bability once more. The syntax appears at times discontinuous, with
a relatively high number of parenthetic phrases (376, 378, 379). How-
ever, the part of Hermes’ speech to Zeus in which he gives a truthful
account of Apollo’s rude invasion into his cave, lacks these stylistic
features. The same is true also of his speech to Maia (163–81), where
Hermes emphatically denies his status as an infant and reveals that
61 Cf. Hermes’ surprised question at 262 λ "« $ 1)« &7« # ¹ «;
62 See Brillante (2001, 98–100).
63 On these, see van Nortwick (1975, 94–95).
64 See Görgemanns (1976, 116–17).
all his actions thus far have been part of a scheme. His goal is to obtain
a status equal to Apollo’s, and his defense speeches are nothing but
an act.
Likewise, Hermes’ address to Apollo at 464–95 exhibits for the
most part connected and complex sentences, its structure being far
more elaborate than that of his other speeches. There is parallelism and
balance, necessary enjambement, and hypotaxis. Hermes uses figu-
rative language: the lyre is personified as a hetaira who is to be brought
to a banquet and to be questioned in the same manner one questions an
oracle. From the rhetorical point of view, Hermes’ last speech in which
he instructs Apollo on how to ‘question’ the lyre, is in no way inferior to
Apollo’s speech at 533–66. Here the speech’s style matches its content:
whereas previously Hermes aimed at deceiving his audience (Apollo,
Zeus) or manipulating their reactions (tortoise), now his language ap-
pears more sincere, as he and Apollo head towards a reconciliation.
In order to become a full member of the Olympian cosmos, Hermes
has to abandon his cunning, deceptive, and seemingly childish rhetoric
and assume a kind of discourse that is # $")"! * vis-à-vis
his fellow Olympians. This does not mean however that Hermes’ lan-
guage has become sincere and unidimensional. His speech to Apollo
begins with a short section (464–74) that shares some of the stylistic
features noted in Hermes’ earlier speeches (short sentences, internal
pauses). Deception, ambiguity, and mutability will remain permanent
characteristics of Hermes and his language.65 The Hymn conveys
Hermes’ deceitful nature characteristically at 576–78:
»! # Ρ (! λ $! ²)·
ξ σ S(!, μ # Ν 1
1 # S φ( φ) ( $ @.
And he (sc. Hermes) consorts with all the mortals and immortals; he is rarely beneficial,
but continuously deceives the races of mortal men through the dark night.
The Hymn’s audience should remain alert to the fact that Hermes, in
spite of his new status and his reconciliation with Apollo, is still able to
deceive; if not the other gods, then certainly us humans.
65 The same is true of the poet. His deceptiveness can be gleaned for instance in the way he
plays with audience expectations; cf. 3n., 10–19n., 87–93n., 227–54n., 384n., 503–78n.
26 Introduction
3. Humour in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes
No one can fail to notice that the Homeric Hymn to Hermes is an ex-
tremely humorous poem.1 It praises a god by narrating his birth and
some important events of his divine biography, but achieves its purpose
in a way quite different from the other major Homeric Hymns. The
praised deity is a newborn baby and commits acts that do not reflect di-
vine dignity by any standard; in short, several moments in this Hymn are
plainly comic. No wonder that Sophocles was inspired by h.Herm. and its
almost picaresque ‘hero’ in composing his satyr-play, the Ichneutae.2
I have discussed some aspects of the poem’s humour in a recent publi-
cation that addresses the question why h.Herm., unlike the other major
Homeric Hymns, does not include a narrated epiphany of the praised
deity.3 I relate this phenomenon to the poem’s comic character, arguing
for the existence of a humorous way of representing Hermes in literature,
traces of which are attested already in epic poetry (the battle of the gods
in Iliad 21, Hermes’ joke in Odyssey 8.335–42, the Homeric Hymn to
1 The humour of h.Herm. has been discussed by Eitrem (1906, 248), Szepes (1980), Fernán-
dez-Delgado (1990), idem (1998), and Furley (2011b, 224–25). The question of laughter in
h.Herm. has most recently been treated in Halliwell (2008, 100–103) and Bungard (2011).
2 On the relation between the Ichneutae and h.Herm., see below p. 79–86. This is not the
place to discuss the issue of the Hymn’s reception in later times. Suffice it to point out that
Schrader (1958) traced the figure of Panurge in Rabelais back to Hermes and proposed
that references to Hermes exist in the first picaresque novel Lazarillo de Tormes; cf. Kruse
(1959) and D. Marsh (1998, 178–79), who treats Hermes (especially in his presentation in
Lucian’s Dialogi Deorum) as the archetypal model of Panurge. And Bloch (1983, 1–3) com-
pares Merlin to Hermes. One could also see in h.Herm. an ancestor of the so-called
Schwankliteratur (literature concerned with, or containing, drole stories); see Straßner
(1978), who surveys on p. 24–25 antecedents of Schwankliteratur in ancient Greek litera-
ture (the Outis episode in the Odyssey, the Margites, the poem on the Cercopes, Semonides’
Iamb on Women, Lucian’s Philopseudes, Aesop’s Fables, and the Philogelos collection), but
says nothing of h.Herm. Finally, Otto (1985, 142, 315) calls Hermes a Schelm (‘rogue’), and
Schneidewin (1848, 663) considers the Hermes poet himself to be roguish; cf. Rader-
macher 191 and 193 who speaks of Schwankmotive.
3 Vergados (2011b, 87–98).
Humour in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes 27
Pan), are found in the iambic and lyric tradition (Hipponax and the nar-
rative about Archilochus in the Mnesiepes inscription; Alcaeus’ Hymn to
Hermes: see below, p. 76–77), and of course appear in Old Comedy. The
Homeric Hymn to Hermes is then another, more pronounced, example of
this mode of presentation. I do not wish to rehearse the material of this
essay here. Rather, I will discuss in a more systematic fashion the evidence
on the poem’s humour that is to be found in the commentary. From the
following analysis it will become clear, I hope, that the poet succeeds in
praising a humorous god effectively through an equally humorous poem.
The Hymn’s comic effect occurs on both the verbal and the thematic
level and can be distinguished, broadly speaking, as falling into four
categories: parody of themes or motifs found in the Hymns and/or else-
where in Epos, parody of specific epic passages, situational humour,
and “linguistic humour.” The parody of specific epic passages should
be clear. Given that h.Herm. belongs to a specific genre of poetry, i.e.
epic poetry and more specifically (rhapsodic) hymn, there are certain
motifs one regularly encounters in this genre; but our poet uses these
motifs only to subvert them, and this, too, results in humour. By “situ-
ational humour” I mean the comic effect that arises from placing the
poem’s characters into a context (or situation) which somehow does
not suit them and leads to incongruity. This happens, for instance, when
the poet presents the wise god of prophecy, Apollo, as incapable of
understanding his infant brother’s tricks. Curiously, the Apolline
prophetic skills are not a match for the cunning tricks of the infant
Hermes. Finally, and certainly unsurprisingly given that Hermes was
thought to be the god of language, comedy arises also by the use of
common (formulaic) phrases in contexts where they prove inappropri-
ate and incongruous, hence comic. It should be noted at the outset that
the aforementioned categories are not to be thought of as “watertight”;
naturally, comedy may arise from the situation in which the hero is
found, who in turn uses language that supports this comic effect. Simi-
larly, what I have called “linguistic humour” can also occur in the pa-
rody of specific epic precedents, given that the poem’s language is tradi-
tional and formulaic for the most part.4
4 Of course the humour of h.Herm. reaches us through the poet’s use of language. But what
distinguishes this Hymn from other humorous texts is that language itself, the vehicle that
conveys this humour, becomes the target of a humorous attitude.
28 Introduction
To begin with, h.Herm. is an unusual poem: there are not one, but
two divine protagonists, Hermes and Apollo. While h.Dem., too, in-
volves two deities, Demeter and Persephone, one of them is absent from
the narrative (and the Olympian world) for a large part of the poem.
But equally important is the difference in the relation between the two
gods: in h.Herm. we witness a relation of divine antagonism. Divine an-
tagonism is certainly nothing unusual in early Greek literature. One
need only think of the so-called Succession Myth in Hesiod’s Theo-
gony or the brief reference to the gods’ attempts to subvert Zeus in Il.
1.396–406, which may point to a well-known story told more fully else-
where. But in these instances we have to do with serious conflicts, and
there is nothing laughable about them. In addition, the longer Homeric
Hymns present important moments in the history of the divine cosmos.
By narrating the birth and/or important events in a god’s life, these
poems account for the god’s position in the Olympian order and help
define his or her power. Sometimes a crisis arises on Olympus which has
to be resolved, and Zeus has a central role in this matter.5 In h.Herm.
this crisis can be expressed in the form of a question: What happens
when a new god is born when the divine honours have already been
distributed?6 The poet chooses to answer this in a humorous way, by
presenting the conflict in extremely human terms, going beyond the an-
thropomorphism of the Homeric divine apparatus: The gods are hu-
manised in the extreme, and the answer to the aforementioned question
turns out to be ludicrous. Instead of a battle of cosmic significance, like
those we meet in the Succession Myth or in the story of Typhoeus, we
see a quarrel that is presented in everyday, almost down-to-earth terms:
a child covets the possessions and honours of his elder brother, and
thus steals some of his possessions. To settle their dispute they must ap-
peal to their father, who finds this situation (and the expert defence
speeches of his infant son) amusing. Particularly amusing is the young
son’s jealous appeal to the father ‘you are my father too’ ( λ
κ φ)« Κ/ ρ, 378). And the younger god is chastised by
5 Clay Politics 11–16.

6 In this sense the ! /
of h.Herm. 332 is particularly humorous: divine anta-
gonism can truly be a serious matter that could destabilize the divine order; but in h.Herm.
this ‘serious matter’ involves a newborn infant in its swaddling clothes! In h.Apol. this di-
vine crisis occurs towards the beginning of Zeus’s reign, and notably all the gods react with
fear to Apollo’s first appearance on Olympus; cf. Clay Politics 96.
his angry mother for coming home late at night after his thievish ex-
ploits (154–61). This mode of presentation is also at work in Apollo’s
questions regarding Hermes’ art at 440–42: was it Hermes’ natural tal-
ent that created this beautiful music? Or did a god bestow this gift on
him? Or did a mortal teach him? These questions are comical because
given the audience’s familiarity with myth, the gods implied here would
have to be Apollo and the Muses! But it is equally important for this
point that Apollo poses these questions in the same way as a human
would ask another mortal.
Another common theme in the Homeric Hymns is the god’s intro-
duction to Olympus: we meet this in h.Apol. (2–13), Persephone is re-
introduced in h.Dem. (483–84), Hephaestus was probably re-introduced
in h.Hom. 1 (to Dionysus),7 h.Hom. 6 introduces Aphrodite among the
immortals. Hermes, too, enters Olympus but in an undignified manner,
as a delinquent, a thief who has to appear in court. While Apollo’s entry
causes fear and Aphrodite’s admiration to the male gods, Hermes’
causes laughter, just like Pan’s in h.Hom. 19, a poem that probably dep-
ends on h.Herm. (see p. 110–11).
This is not to say that divine comedy is not to be found elsewhere in
early epic. There are certainly examples: one might think of Hephaestus
the cup-bearer at the end of Iliad 1, usurping the role of a Hebe or a
Ganymede;8 Aphrodite and Ares are treated irreverently by the poet
in Iliad 5; we meet some humorous moments in the Theomachy (Il. 21)
as well; the beguiled Zeus of Il. 14 with his inept catalogue of women
may draw at least a smile from the reader; and we cannot forget Ares
and Aphrodite in Od. 8. Nor are humorous moments absent from
the Homeric Hymns themselves.9 But in h.Herm. we do not merely en-
counter some humorous moments; rather, the comic tone is sustained
throughout the bulk of the poem. The Hymn’s tone becomes serious
only in the last part of the poem, after the two gods’ conciliation (on
this, see below, p. 37–39).
Much of the poem’s comedy derives from the Kindheitsmotif, the
motif of precocious childhood, which the poet combines with the story
7 See West (2001).

8 See Halliwell (2008, 58–64).
9 See Clay (2011, 245–46).
30 Introduction
of Hermes as cattle-rustler and inventor of the lyre.10 While the poet of

h.Herm. was probably not the first to place these events at the begin-
ning of Hermes’ life (Alcaeus preceded him; see p. 76–77) and while
he was not the first to use this motif in a rhapsodic hymn either (this
appears already in h.Apol.), he deftly employs this theme to produce a
highly comic plot, sometimes verging on the absurd, and in some way
looking forward to Hellenistic poetry.
Hermes achieves several feats of metis in one day: he constructs a
lyre, spirits away fifty cows, slaughters and roasts two of them, plays
music, argues for his innocence etc. But all this happens while he is a
newborn infant, by definition incapable of performing any of this. The
situation is pushed to the limits when the poet puts this adynaton in
Hermes’ mouth, when he has him argue against Apollo’s accusations by
employing the argument from probability. Granted that Hermes is the
patron god of language and rhetoric, it is absurd that he utters speeches
that are rhetorically embellished, especially when his adult opponent’s
speeches are presented as lacking in organization (see p. 387, 463).
Hermes is an infant who claims to be an infant, hence to have infantile
concerns (266–68) and to be incapable of stealing cattle. But recall lines
164–65, where the 7« objects to his treatment as a 7« though
he lies swaddled in his crib!
Parody of specific epic models is a fruitful source of comedy in the
Hymn. The poet of h.Herm. probably knew well h.Apol. (this is argued
on p. 70–73), and composed h.Herm. as a humorous counterpart to this
earlier poem. In fact, one might think of h.Herm. as an irreverent
answer to the claims made by Apollo himself in the Hymn dedicated to
him. The Hermes poet is in effect partly working with the same themes
as the poet of h.Apol.: how did Apollo become the god of the lyre? How
and when did he acquire the gift of prophecy? This is not an isolated
question, for Apollo’s prophetic abilities and his pre-eminence at Del-
phi did not go unchallenged in myth.11 In addition, both poems present
the god’s precocious childhood; but whereas in h.Apol. Apollo assumes
the form in which he is known in myth and art and then claims the bow,
lyre, and prophecy (131–32), in h.Herm. the god remains an infant, and
10 Bielohlawek (1930, 203–204) sees this as the source of comedy in h.Herm. and ignores
many other sources of humour in the poem.
11 See Kurke (2010, 53–94).
the poet reminds us of this several times throughout the Hymn. This in
turn paves the way for more comic action.
Passing on to more specific epic examples, there is the proverb
found in Hes. Op. 365 that the poet quotes at v. 36 (F ")
ρ, λ ")" μ μ 1 (φ). It is true that both Hesiod and the
poet of h.Herm. may have drawn this phrase from a common source of
proverbial wisdom. However, the familiarity with Hesiod’s work (or at
least parts of it) of the poet of h.Herm. is beyond doubt (see p. 67–70),
and this permits us at least to consider what the effect might be if
the Hymn poet placed a gem of Hesiodic wisdom in Hermes’ mouth.
Leaving aside the fact that a newborn baby is quoting a proverbial ex-
pression that derives from popular knowledge and tradition (when
was he – the one-day-old child – exposed to this tradition?) and which
furthermore has been used by a predecessor of the poet (has Hermes
read/heard Hesiodic poetry?), the comic effect here arises also from
the misapplication of this proverb:12 the animal’s entry into Hermes’
home will turn out to be not ") but ")" *. So, perhaps
Hermes, the god of language, got the meaning of the proverb wrong
after all (or so it might seem, in view of his young age). At the same
time we cannot fail to notice the mischievous child who treats an ani-
mal with cruelty.
The image of Hermes tying his sandals before he embarks on a
mission is known from the Homeric epics: cf. Il. 24.340–41 and Od.
5.44–45 (in the latter instance Hermes visits the cave of another Atlan-
tid, Calypso) Kμ !!λ 7! ) ) | $" *! / 1!.
But our poet deflates this image at 83–84: Kμ !!λ 7!
!) φ | C! )!. Beside their verbal repetition,
the two phrases are metrically equivalent (the effect of the enjambment
being also reproduced by the Hermes poet) and both are followed by a
relative clause. The poet’s innovation depends on considerations of
sense: Instead of wearing golden sandals, Hermes puts on his makeshift
shoes, which he had to fabricate so quickly that he kept even the
branches’ foliage on them. Was one perhaps expecting Hermes to tie his
beautiful, divine, golden sandals? Well, one’s expectations are answered
with a bathetic image: Hermes’ sandals are light (i.e. with a φ
12 Cf. Tzifopoulos (2000) and above, p. 16, 23–24.

32 Introduction
, a light sole, not the boots that were often the attribute of
Hermes in visual arts)13, hence they are inappropriate for travelling in
the countryside (remember, Hermes in the Hymn is not flying, but walk-
ing), and consist of branches with their leaves sticking out like wings!
This point is perhaps picked up later by Eratosthenes in his Hermes, who
gives the god φ ! (boots) instead of !) (see below, p. 91–92).
Hermes’ confrontation with Maia provides further parodistic ma-
terial. Lines 163–64
7, ! , 1
| 7, χ« ) φ !λ F!) ρ are reminiscent of
Il. 20.200–202, 431–33 P()U(, κ κ !! (1 —« | 3)
<!, λ !φ ρ λ Cμ« | ξ « # F!)
7!!. But the speaker is of course a 7, lying in his crib,
dressed in his swaddling-clothes, but emphatically denying his status as
a 7. Parody of an epic model is to be found also in Hermes’ words
in the same speech (174–75): κ @9 (! κ *«, - 3
| 7!· 1 φ)( R /« ρ seem to echo Il. 1.324
κ @9 (!, Ω Cμ« Q). In both cases the speaker
expresses his intention to acquire by force what he thinks belongs
to him, and the result is again bathetic: whereas in the Iliad it is the
commander-in-chief who argues with the “best of the Achaeans,’’
which leads to trouble in the Achaean host, here it is a petulant little
boy, claiming the position that his elder brother has.
When Hermes emphatically denies any knowledge of the cows, the
poet has him say μ ξ )« ρ $ 1 ‘I have only heard,’ which is
reminiscent of Il. 2.486 (π« ξ )« ρ $ 1 C F).
But the poet of the Iliad uses this phrase before narrating the Catalogue
of Ships, and it is part of his invocation to the Muses who as eyewit-
nesses have direct knowledge of the facts, contrary to men who only
know from hearsay. Hermes (who, it will be remembered, acts as a bard
in the poem) uses this phrase to end his speech, has direct knowledge of
the cattle-theft since he committed it himself, and does not know it only
from its )«. At the same time, the poet is playing on the meaning of
)«: are we to understand here the ‘rumour,’ the ‘hearsay,’ or the
glory that Hermes will acquire through the narration of these events by
Apollo on Olympus (and through the Hymn we are hearing)?
13 See Morrow (1985, 193 n. 6).

Furthermore, lines 278–79 λ μ $μ ")φ $ 1!!

| Sφ 1! W&! ² @« 3 λ 3 echo Hes. Th. 826–27,
¹ (sc. Typhoeus) R!! | !!9 (« φ)9
! K# Sφ 1!
$ !!. Besides the verbal resonances, there are some thematic
correspondences as well: both characters’ eyes flash, and both present
a threat to the divine cosmos as it exists up to that point (Typhoeus
attempts to overthrow Zeus, while Hermes desires the honours that
belong to Apollo). In addition, Typhoeus is thrown into Tartarus
(Hes. Th. 869), while Apollo has threatened Hermes with the same pu-
nishment at 256–57. Finally, both Hermes and Typhoeus produce hiss-
ing sounds (cf. 280 $! & ~ Hes. Th. 835 W&!/#). It goes with-
out saying that this Hesiodic reminiscence is humorous, and again we
meet the theme of divine succession that is comically inverted.
Finally, we may also cite 466 ) -« ρ, elsewhere
found at Il. 8.40 and 22.184. In both verses Zeus addresses Athena;
these lines imply the speaker’s superiority (note that at Il. 8.38 Zeus
smiles, 7!«, and in both 8.39–40 and 22.183–84 he begins his
speech by saying that he does not earnestly plan to carry out what he
had just said). Coming from the mouth of Hermes, this phrase sounds
ludicrous, like his address of Apollo as a few lines later.
We are constantly reminded of the comic absurdity of the situation
through the many jokes the poet makes. This happens already at the
beginning of the poem: Maia is introduced to us as (, ‘revered’ or
‘shy’ (5), then also as * ‘august’ (19). While all this certainly aims
at increasing her status (and by consequence also that of Hermes), we
cannot but think that Maia is not august in the same way Hera is,
whose name often appears in epic accompanied by * in the same
metrical sedes. Nor can we avoid smiling at 6–9 where the poet narrates
how Zeus mingled with the nymph in her cave at the dead of the night:
picture Zeus waiting for it to get dark, so that he can escape the atten-
tion of his ever vigilant wife (cf. Il. 1.518–23) in order to meet with Maia
quietly in her cave…
Then, the tortoise Hermes meets is said to walk !) (see 28n.).
This adverb does not simply define the animal’s gait, but sets up an im-
plicit comparison. The tortoise becomes a woman of ill repute who
walks with the appropriate gait. Hermes addresses it as if it were a
pretty girl (esp. 31–32; note that later the chelys-lyre will be presented as
a hetaira) which he – the infant! – wants to lead into his home. The god
34 Introduction
is said to laugh at this sight (29 $ 7!« )!!), and we will also
laugh hearing/reading this description, not the least when we consider
that the tortoise was not a lustful animal and was proverbially silent
(see p. 258, 530). All this renders the description even more incom-
patible with any realistic expectation.
We also meet Hermes the singer. Passing over the absurdity of hav-
ing a newborn sing of his own begetting, it is worth dwelling a moment
on the fact that this inserted hymn is introduced as Hermes’ part in the
exchange of banter in a banquet. But how could a hymn, basically a
serious song, one of whose goals is to establish the singer’s 7 as
S )«, fit such a context? Perhaps as an answer to a taunt that
Hermes is not a 7!«? At any rate, we are justified in detecting an
incongruity here, since a text resembling a rhapsodic hymn is given
as answer in a playful repartee. Hermes’ hymn to himself is also a play
on sympotic convention. We know that hymns were sung in banquets
(cf. p. 11 n. 25), but Hermes’ self-hymn would put an end to this play-
ful circle: it is an (at least partly) serious text that spoils the fun of the
mutual bantering. In fact, this imaginary banquet seems to end after
this inset hymn, with Hermes putting away his lyre and departing for
Pieria.
Hermes’ quest for Apollo’s cattle is motivated by hunger (64
&) as the poet says: that is absurd, too, as it presents the infant
Hermes craving for meat though he ought not to. It also looks forward
to the Alpheios’ scene, where Hermes is tormented by the savour of the
meat, wishes to eat some of it, but cannot bring himself to. This can be
related to the god’s “identity crisis,’ (see above, p. 4–5). But it also looks
forward to Hermes’ presentation in Comedy where he also seems to be
very much interested in food.14 We have here then yet another joke: a
god who is tormented by mortal concerns (a portion of meat) and
undergoes an identity crisis, as if gods need self-confirmation of their
divine nature!
To these we should add the comic deflation of such solemn institu-
tions as the oath and the mantic art. Hermes offers two oaths (274–76,
383–84). The first is sworn on his father’s head; but as Hermes has not
yet been recognized by Zeus, we may ask who is this father. The second
14 See Bowie (1993, 138–42) and Nobili (2011, 217–24). Eitrem (1909a) detects an allusion to
h.Herm. in Hermes’ presentation in Aristophanes’ Plutos.
oath is an even clearer instance of deflation: he swears this great (but

incomplete) oath … by the gods’ well-adorned porches!
But this is not all. At the river Alpheios, Hermes organizes this
ritual meal whose nature has been the source of great scholarly dis-
cussion: is it a sacrifice? a pseudo-sacrifice or an inverted sacrifice? a
dais? an unattested Arcadian ritual? It is a ritual act resembling a sacri-
fice, which naturally would be followed by a common meal; perhaps a
better designation for this act would not be sacrifice, but the parody or
travesty of a trapezoma (see 115–41 n.). If a trapezoma is indeed referred
to here, then this scene is even more humorous than it might at first ap-
pear: Hermes, who is officiating at this ritual, consecrates to the gods
the meat of stolen cows whose owner must be among the twelve guests;
but then according to this ritual Hermes would receive all these por-
tions as his “priestly” prerogative.
We are constantly reminded of Hermes’ ! , his swaddling-
clothes. But what is surprising is that they are once called 7.
Naturally, things belonging to the gods are fragrant (cf. 65 n. on the di-
vine fragrance motif). The poet thus calls again into question a poetic
convention: if objects belonging to gods and the very presence of the
gods are fragrant, should also a god’s diapers be thought of as such? A
similar olfactory joke occurs at 231–32 when Apollo visits Cyllene, in a
scene that owes much to the description of Calypso’s island in Od. 5 (cf.
p. 403). Just as on Calypso’s island there is a pleasant fragrance (Sκ
¹ *!!) wafting over the mountain; but our poet hastens to add
)) ξ
) 1 "*! (, thus deflating the pleasant
(olfactory) image.
Sometimes, humour arises from the poet’s literal interpretation of
formulaic material. For instance, Hermes is known to be 1«, and
he is called so in the poem, but he denies this when he says Κ … -
) $ λ 3 (265, 377), and at the sight of Apollo runs to his crib
and hides in his blanket.15 The poet uses the traditional appellation
#A φ*(« though the only creatures Hermes kills in the Hymn are a
15 But Hermes is said to have great strength at 116. This is yet another joke of the poet’s:
imagine a newborn child, dragging and throwing two cows on their backs as if he were a
wrestler! Of course, gods do perform supernatural feats even in childhood; cf. the infant
Heracles killing the two snakes sent by Hera. But in such a comic poem it is tempting to
read lines 116–19 as a joke.
36 Introduction
tortoise and two cows, but certainly no mythical beast. Conversely,

Apollo is ' ("*)« and ' «, but he appears to be only too close
to Hermes at 234 and 239. Hermes is a baby, but has an $7
* (132) that does not obey his wish to partake of the meat. Besides,
the Hermes poet deflates also the concept of “omen.” This 1« god
is lifted by Apollo, whereupon he emits his )7 ! μ« 3 ,
$!) $)@( at 296 (‘a wretched labourer of the belly, an in-
solent messenger’; see n. ad loc.) and sneezes. Noticing these “omens,”
Apollo proclaims that he is going to discover his lost cattle 1«
!, and in effect he makes himself the interpreter of Hermes’
fart-omen. This leads to further comedy: Apollo, the prophetic god par
excellence, predicts that Hermes will lead him to the stolen cows. In-
terestingly, this is what happens at 392–94, and it is underscored by
verbal repetitions from 302–303 (" Fφ ( at 302 and 394;
π1!« and π1 at 303 and 392, respectively). It turns
out that Hermes’ omens had some strength ( «) after all.16 They
were not mere flatulence, but true (!), and the poet then appro-
priately used lofty language to describe what Hermes emitted as he was
raised aloft.
There is more of this “linguistic humour.” Hermes has just invented
a new way of kindling fire at 108–11, yet the poet playfully tells us that it
was the "( ) Hφ! that lit up the fire (115). The poet
moreover re-literalizes 3 at 127: instead of denoting the
works of agriculture that lead to wealth implied by , this phrase
points to the reality at hand: the pieces of fat meat that Hermes has cut
(as if it were () , which the poet in fact uses at 120). Nor does
he stop there: the poet creates new words, humorous formations on the
basis of epic precedent, i.e. ! (301) and (/ (436),
probably a parodistic reference to $! that we find in the Iliad.
All this points to a poet who does not simply reproduce the formu-
laic material he inherited from his predecessors.17 Rather, he seems to
reflect on the meaning of these formulae, even of the traditional epi-
thets used in these formulae, just as he reflects on some of the themes
found in hymnal poetry and on the nature of his art in general (above,
16 See Fernández-Delgado (1998, 8–9).

17 See below, section 4, where the same conclusion is reached after an examination of the
poem’s vocabulary and formulaic material.
p. 9–14). It is doubtful whether this can lead us to any firm conclusions

regarding the question of the Hymn’s position within the orality-liter-
acy spectrum, since attention to the meaning of individual words is
found elsewhere in archaic epic as well.18 At any rate, it would be odd if
a poet who clearly reflected on the potential for comedy provided by
the argument μ *« in this poem and whose central character
gives dazzling examples of his rhetorical deftness, had not paid suffi-
cient attention to the nature of what makes all this possible, namely
(poetic) language. What seems to be the case, however, is that h.Herm.
goes further in this than other texts, making the reflection on language
a sustained issue as the aforementioned examples show. This is surely
related to the subject matter of this poem, namely Hermes, many of
whose spheres of competence are tied to the clever (cunning) use of lan-
guage.19
But we must not forget an important point in this discussion on the
poem’s humour: the comedy seems to stop after the two gods’ concili-
ation (i.e. after 495). And this becomes particularly striking when we
bear in mind that the god’s swaddling-clothes, which he was taking on
and off like a disguise in the greater part of the poem, are forgotten; the
deceptive child-like language is also abandoned (cf. above, p. 24–25);
Hermes swears an honest oath to Apollo, in contrast to the two false or
humorous ones earlier; and contrary to the comic omens of Hermes
(295–97), a serious discussion on forms of divination (that also reveals
their limitations) ensues between the two gods. The difference in tone is
so stark that if only the last section of the Hymn had been preserved, we
would be certain that the two gods conversing were adults. What are we
to make of this? Should we attribute it to a later Bearbeiter (an Apolline
partisan), who added the latter part of the poem, as was done in the
past?20
Perhaps it would be more profitable to examine this from a different
perspective. Hermes is a trickster figure, and as such he is comical, as
these often are. The god’s antics in the h.Herm. conform to the six gen-
18 Cf., for instance, the pun on Κ«, 7 «, and

« in Od. 9.405–14.
19 For Dobrov (2001, 3–4) Hermes best exemplifies reflexive poetics.
20 This is discussed, with negative conclusion, in the appropriate section of the commentary,
p. 550–52.
38 Introduction
eral characteristics of the trickster as set out by D. Hynes.21 These are (i)
the trickster’s fundamentally ambiguous or anomalous personality
(cf. Hermes’ ‘identity crisis’ referred to above, p. 4–5); (ii) he is a de-
ceiver or trick player (cf. the stratagem he uses to confuse Apollo); (iii)
he is a shape-shifter (cf. the strange tracks which for Apollo take the
form of something more terrible than a centaur);22 (iv) he is an extem-
porizer, dealing with the problems as they arise and solving them with
the material he finds in his immediate environment; (v) he is the mes-
senger of the gods; and (vi) he is a sacred bricoleur (cf. Hermes’ ‘won-
drous sandals,’ the fire-sticks, the lyre). Significantly, a trickster calls
with his actions a set of established values in question. In the case of
h.Herm., Hermes in one way or the other addresses the institution of
sacrifice and the ensuing commensality, music, (forensic) oratory, lan-
guage, oath, prophecy, and the question of how we gather our evidence
(what may be logically expected may not be the case; cf. German Sein
und Schein). But by challenging these facets of human life, he is at the
same time drawing our attention to them, and in doing this, he reaf-
firms their rules for the audience.23
We may look into some of the few festivals in honour of Hermes for
a suggestive parallel. Plutarch records that at the festival of Hermes
/ *(« in Samos, stealing was permitted (Plu. Mor. 303d), while at
the Hermaia in Crete masters and slaves exchanged roles: the slaves
feasted, while their masters served them (Athen. 639b). In both festivals
we meet the phenomenon of a temporary suspension of order, a rever-
sal of ordinary roles and rules, to which after a limited period of time
the community returns. Would it be too far-fetched to posit a similar
situation in h.Herm.? The poet creates a comic hymn whose subject are
two of the Olympian gods, whom he presents in disorder and in a hu-
morous fashion. But this disorder and reversal of the norm, brought
about by the very entry of Hermes into the world, comes to an end be-
fore the poem’s finish, through the fair exchange between Apollo and
21 See Hynes (1997, 34ff). On trickster figures in general, see P. Radin (1955), Hyde (2010),
Hynes and Doty (1997).
22 Cf. possibly also his changing into mist at 145–47, if we accept this interpretation with
Hynes (1997, 37). See n. ad loc.
23 See Hynes and Doty (1997, 1–2); Bowie (1993, 11–14) for a similar approach in Old Comedy.
Hermes, by the re-definition of their power, and by the reprise24 in a

more serious tone of important themes ridiculed earlier in the work
(oath, prophecy, respect of one’s property etc.) that leads us back
into the (divine and human) world as the audience know it today. The
Hymn is then “instructive entertainment” as Hynes and Doty (1997, 7)
call the trickster stories, or to use a more classical term, a case of !-
) that instructs us not only about the mythical story of
Hermes but about the seriousness of the theological speculation pre-
sented in the rhapsodic hymns as well.
24 The term is purposefully chosen here for its musical connotations, viz. the return of the ini-
tial musical theme towards the end of the piece in the forma sonata.
40 Introduction
4. Relation to Archaic Literature
4.1 Language
4.1.1 Vocabulary1
General remarks
The words presented in the following lists are discussed in the appropri-
ate place in the commentary. On the basis of especially 4.1.3 and 4.1.4
one has the impression that the poem’s vocabulary is unusual and
exhibits several innovations, which may not be incompatible with a date
at the end of the 6th c. or even in the 5th c. BC.2 Eighteen of the words in
4.1.4 occur in poetry composed before h.Herm.; about twenty-three ap-
pear next in the tragic and comic playwrights, thirteen in Pindar, Bac-
chylides, or other lyric poetry, fifteen in Herodotus, nine in Hellenistic
hexameter, and eight in later literature. In regard to the frequency of
unique words in early hexameter, Nicholas Richardson (2010, 23–24)
provides the following data: h.Herm. = 1 word in 16 verses; Il. = 1 word
in 52 verses, Od. = 1 word in 36 verses, h.Dem. 1 word in 41 verses. But
Richardson also points out that in terms of untraditional vocabulary
the overall effect in the total number of words is not different from what
we meet in other early poems (ca. 4 %).3
At the same time we need to bear in mind the following. Given that
only part of the archaic epic literature has survived, the fact that certain
words are not attested elsewhere before h.Herm. need not mean that
these are innovations. For instance, although %)( is not attested
in Homer, Hesiod, or the other Homeric Hymns, it is improbable that
the poets did not know this word, given that they use ) @)«
1 The Hymn’s vocabulary has been examined by Fietkau (1866), Greve (1867), Windisch
(1867), Zumbach (1955), and Shelmerdine (1981, 17–22). See also the observations in Ri-
chardson (2010, 23–24).
2 Cf. the quotation from West on p. 130.
3 See also Richardson (1987) for an examination of the unique vocabulary in Iliad 21 and 22.
Relation to Archaic Literature 41
frequently. Then, several of the words of h.Herm. that are paralleled

in later literature are compounds of already existing words (e.g.
) , "), !!!1, $*, ),
φ ! etc.).4 Even when innovation can be plausibly assumed,
the poet often seems to be extending archaic epic use, and for most of
the words that are unattested in Homer and/or Hesiod, there are co-
gnates or at least parallels in these earlier texts, as is shown in the com-
mentary.5
In evaluating the uniqueness of the poem’s vocabulary, it is essential
that we not disregard the importance of the poem’s tone as a factor that
influences linguistic choice. For example, the presence of legal language
(e.g. (1, 7 , ( * λ /!) should not
cause any surprise, given that Hermes and Apollo refer their dispute to
Zeus who acts as a judge. Similarly, the poet’s humorous attitude to the
subject matter, which shapes the poem both on the thematic as well as
the verbal level, is equally important. Nobody reading or listening to
a hymn expects to find the high degree of comedy that we encounter
in h.Herm. Just as the poet humorously treats his divine subject, whose
stories he draws from the tradition, he treats with a similar attitude his
poetic language, which also derives from tradition.6 Given that h.Herm.
shows affinities with the presentation of Hermes in iambus and com-
edy,7 we cannot exclude the possibility that the poet’s vocabulary has
been influenced by genres or poetic currents other than epic. What ap-
pears thus to be “late” or innovative may in fact reflect not the poem’s
date but its incorporation of material belonging to different traditions
or genres.8
4 Just as in Il. 21 and 22, many of the unique words in h.Herm are compound; cf. Richardson
(1987, 168).
5 See West (2008) for an illustration of the evolution of the epic language as represented in
the Hesiodic papyri.
6 Hoekstra (1969, 19 n. 44) notes that “the well-known humorous treatment of the subject in
[h.Herm.] brings about an analogous handling of the epic style.” Cf. also Janko (1982,
136), Richardson (2007, 85) and idem (2010, 23–24).
7 On this subject, see Vergados (2011b) and Nobili (2011, 217–24). On the poem’s humour,
see also above, p. 26–39.
8 In this connection, see Martin (1997, esp. 153–66), who shows that the “late” linguistic
elements found in the Homeric similes point to non-epic song traditions that were inte-
grated into the epic poems.
42 Introduction
4.1.1.1 Words attested thus far only in h.Herm.

These words are marked with an asterisk in the commentary.
13 ¹)7(, 15 S(

(?)9, 15 )(* , 41 $()7!«
(most likely corrupt), 42 <* (!, 56 "*), 57 ))),
75 )«, 86 C 7!«, 109 )5, 129 )( )«,
137 C)*, 159 φ)(1!, 190 " *, 301 ! ,
335 φ))7«, 339 )(!" , 357 )(!,
361 %* &, 389 (, 400 π/, 411 ")(,
436 (/, 443 7φ, 478 C*), 486 7,
511 !!, 517 ", 531 1«, 546 5)*!
4.1.1.2 Words which h.Herm. shares with Hesiod but not with Homer
A good number of these words (fourteen out of twenty-four) are found
in the Works and Days. For possible allusions to Hesiod, see p. 67–70.
1 8 (Th./Op.; cf. Od. 8.429 $

« 8), 17 ) « (Op.),
19 (Op.), 30 S& (Op.), 31 *!! (Th.), 44
(Op.), 46 1« (Th.; used of Hermes), 47 ! (Op.), 67 φ)

(Op.), 80 Νφ ! (fr.), 80 (fr.), 98 R « (Op.),
105 φ* " (Op.), 112 ») (Op.), 146 /« (Sc.),
158 [(U(« (Sc., fr.), 159 & (Op.), 338 (Op.), 342
C1 (fr.), 372 « (Op.), 495 &« (fr.), 498 " )«
(Th.), 557 )(! (Op.), 559 ( (Th.)
4.1.1.3 Words and phrases used differently in h.Herm. than in Homer

and/or Hesiod
2 of Hermes, cf. S. fr. 371, Ar. Ra. 665. 14 )(!

‘robber’ instead of ‘pirate’. 14 )
‘one who drives away’, cf.
Call. Jov. 3, Opp. C. 1.119. 14 π7 : in Homer = ‘military leader’.
20 * = < . 23 K5( φ« of a cave. 55 C!/(« ‘im-
provisation’ instead of ‘battle at close quarters’. 72 $ ( !« ‘un-
touched’; then at Rhian. AP 12.93.4 (= HE 3211). 85/237 $)
9 This has been supplemented in Epigr.Gr. 1032.2 (Kaibel).

‘hide’?. 92 φ*« ‘deaf’. 95 )1« of mountain glens instead

of people. 96 7)! = ‘pass through’. 98 ( *« ‘he who
sends or causes people to work’. 107 1 « masculine instead of
neuter. 108 with acc. 114 φ! ‘blast of fire’ instead of
‘bellows’. 127 3 ‘pieces of fat meat’ instead of ‘agricultural
work (that leads to wealth)’. 152 )φ« ‘cover, blanket’; elsewhere
‘rags, sail’. 194 « of a living animal. 194 / : normally
of lions. 230 $" !( with ‘Night’; elsewhere of inanimate objects.
250 Ν φ of clothing; normally of sheep. 279 W&! norm-
ally ‘turn’ or ‘hurl’. 350 @ = )1. 354 * as an
attribute of the ground. 361 C« = ‘eyes’. 361 $)1 norm-
ally ‘prepare a meal’. 400 / 7 = ‘cattle’. 411 C* = sua
sponte. 415 K")7( = ‘downcast’, elsewhere ‘interrupting’. 426
$")(. elsewhere of boiling water. 442 $* normally of per-
sons. 452 " *« of musical sounds. 487 &φ)« of ‘question-
ing’ the lyre; normally of anger. 488 ))& of an unmusical sound
produced by the lyre. 544 )( of birds of omen. 557
)(! with acc. instead of gen. (cf. Hes. Op. 316, 443). 565 9
(«
‘instruct’? 572 )! ‘formally appointed’
4.1.1.4 Words not attested in Homer and Hesiod

(I indicate in parentheses the earliest attestations of these words outside
the Hymn)
6 )! « (Archil.). 12 $ !( (Tyrt.). 17 @«: this form is

not guaranteed; @« might have stood here. 17 &
(h.Apol.). 21 ) ) (S.). 24 /) (Sapph., Alc.). 28 !)
(Semon., Anacr.). 30 !1") (Archil.). 30 S7! (A.). 31
/ 1 (Pi.; but cf. Hom. Il. 24.261 / 9(!). 33 R!
(Margit.; S., Theoc.). 35 $7! (Dem., Call.). 37 ()!(«
(h.Dem.). 37 )7« (h.Dem.). 41 )φ) (Call., Theoc.).
42 /)@(« (Hdt. 1.47.3 in an oracle). 45 $ (Ar.). 47 )-
(Pi.). 53 )7 ) (h.Apol.). 53 « (h.Dem.). 56 π"(
(E.). 75 5@ (A.R.). 79 !) (Sappho). 80 $*(
(S., Pl.). 80 ) (Pi.). 81 !7« (Gal.). 82 Ν )«
(Rom. Mel.). 83 $")"« (Th.). 90 ! « (Hdt.). 93 -
")9 ( (Arist.; also I.Cret. IV42B 11, 82B 3: 5th c.) 94 !!
44 Introduction
([Orph.]). 95 C)« (Hdt.). 103 Κ) (S.). 103 K5)

([Orph.], Nonn.). 104 )(1« (Theoc.; at Pherecr. 5.4 it means ‘cof-
fin.’ But at Hes. Op. 504 [(@ is the name of a month). 111
$ (Hdt., Antim.). 111 7 (S.). 112 ) (Call.;
but it is met in [Hes.] as a proper name). 122 ! ([Orph.]).
125 )/ * (Hdt.). 127 / *φ (Hsch.). 128 )
(A.R.). 141 ) (E.). 143 R « (Thgn.). 146 )7
(A.). 151 ! (Pi.). 152 1« (Theoc.?). 165 ")«
(S.). 168 $@ ( (E.). 168 Ν)! (A.). 187 !φ
(Bacch.). 192 ') « (S.). 209 9 (! (A.). 222 "7
(Sapph.). 224 )!1/« (h.Hom. 7, S.). 229 "1! (Theoc.;
cf. )! at line 6, a metrical and prosodic equivalent). 230
)*/! (E.). 238 (Pi.). 241 *))« (Hp.). 245 -
( (Hp.). 248 )« (E.). 254 7 (Hdt.). 255 -
!* (Heracl., Hdt.). 264 7 (Hippon.). 272 $ «
(Pl.). 273 /« (Hdt.). 276 )* (Opp.: )*«). 280 $!-
& (Luc.). 282 )φ « (Pi.). 285 ! & (Hdt.; but per-
haps already Archil. 140.2?). 296 $)@( (Call.). 307 &-
! (Pi.). 308 S !)1« (A.). 313 7( (Dem.,
Isoc., Pl.). 316 )& (Hp., E.). 322 (Emp.). 325 ¹-
)( (a conjecture; the word appears next in Plu., but ¹1)()« is
found in early epic). 332 ! (Thgn., Hdt.). 336 =!7
(Hsch.). 346 Ν) « (a conjecture; Hp., Pherecr.). 351
(Pi.). 352 !"« (Hdt., A.). 356 < (Hdt). 360 )
(Hsch.). 372 *« (Hdt.). 375 φ) « (X.). 384 C *-
!( (Eust.). 384 1 ([Orph.]). 388 %)9 ( (A.). 406
*« (h.Dem.). 410 Ν (Hp., Chionid.). 413 )5φ «
(Man., Greg.Naz.). 431 !" (Pl.). 433 ) (A.R.). 436
"φ* (Simon.). 438 π!/« (Pl.). 448 "« (Hdt., A.). 449
3 (Sappho). 450 S(*« (A.). 460 $ * (Hdt.). 472
« (Tyrt.). 478 ' ( (= ‘courtesan’ Hdt.). 481
(Thgn., Pi.). 485 !(9 (! (Hp., Pl.). 486 !( (Pi.). 512
$ !7 (Hp., S.). 515 $ )59 (« (Inscr. 6th c.). 526–27 …
7! (Hdt.). 530 () (Call.). 556 ! ) (A.).
562 $!φ!! (h.Dem.). 573 Ν« (pap. II AD).
4.1.1.5 Miscellaneous
1. Atticisms
Zumbach 56–63 detected a number of Atticisms on the basis of which
he concluded that h.Herm. was composed in Attica. However, objec-
tions can be raised against several of the forms pointed out by him. An
exhaustive (and deconstructing) survey of the poem’s presumed Atti-
cisms can be found in Janko (1982, 143–49). Here I briefly note the fol-
lowing:
1. @« (17) is not guaranteed; @« may have stood here.
2. 7/« (50) is a scribal Atticism; M has 7/«.
3. $φ (50) is not found in archaic epic, but should not be deemed
Attic, as it occurs at Pi. P. 3.57, I. 5.18, Alc. S262.20 SLG, Archil.
328.7.
4. F/( (76) is also not guaranteed; Hermann emended to F/’, and we
find F/ at 218, 220, and 342.
5. R ( (95) is guaranteed by the metre; but cf. 70 R ! * (also
guaranteed). This example is not listed in Zumbach.
6. R « (98) has Hesiodic parallels as Zumbach himself mentions
(cf. Op. 577).
7. Κ!« (106) has parallels in early epic; see n. ad loc.
8. (140) is paralleled by $<( 9 Υ ( at Il. 21.347.
9. $@ (173) is paralleled only in Theoc. and Bion.
10. 3< (208) is not found elsewhere in early epic, but should not be
considered necessarily Attic; it appears in Pi. O. 3.24, 5.16, 13.72,
I. 8.59, fr. 52h.38.
11. "
(222) occurs first here in hexameter, but it cannot be called an
Attic form since it is found in Sappho and Pindar; see n. ad loc.
12. » (255) is not guaranteed; we meet !! at 212 and it may
well be the case that the Attic form ousted the original epic form.
13. Zumbach considers ( Υ (373) an Atticism, but that too is not
certain; ( may have stood here.
Thus the only certain non-epic forms are R ( (95), $@ (173; but
see n. ad loc.), and 1 (405; but cf. Chantraine, GH I 52–54 for simi-
lar contractions), and of course no certain conclusions about the
Hymn’s provenance can be drawn from these. We may speculate that
there might have been an Attic phase in the transmission of the poem;
46 Introduction
the poem was popular in Athens and its wide circulation there could
have led to the intrusion of Attic forms in the tradition.
2. Use of special vocabulary

Besides drawing on the common formulaic heritage, the poet occasio-
nally uses vocabulary and expressions of a more technical or specialized
nature. The following should be noted:
(i) Expressions drawn from the language of oracles10

The following expressions are not found exclusively in oracular texts, but
in view of the Hymn’s interest in prophecy (esp. at 533–66) it may not be
unreasonable to assume that the audience might have sensed the ora-
cular connotations of these phrases. It is worth pointing out that such
vocabulary is not confined to the last part of the Hymn. Thus we note:
1. $))# Ρ 7 … λ * (10–13), a formula found in oracles; see
10–19n. The effect of this wording is that Hermes’ birth is presented
with the gravity of an oracular response.
2. !1") (30), used of the tortoise which thus appears to be a her-
maion and an omen. Apollo too receives a (bird) omen at 213–14.
3. ("« $μ P («) &7« # ¹ (191); cf. _)« …
&7« (Orac.Delph. 111.2 P-W = L5 Fontenrose), D « …
&7« (Or. 216.5 P-W = Q7.5 Fontenrose); further 406.3, 202,
317.1, 379.4, 517.2 P-W (= L99.3, L40, L80.1, L164.4, F13.2 Fon-
tenrose). Apollo, whose omniscience is questioned throughout the
Hymn, is presented as a theoros consulting an oracle.
4. λ "« $ 1)« &7« # ¹ «; (262). Hermes as-
sumes the role of the omniscient oracle and in typical oracular
fashion he repeats the enquirer’s question before giving his answer.11
5. C @ ! … Κ (464–65); cf. Orac.Delph. 607.3
P-W and Hdt. 1.66 = Orac.Delph. 31.3 P-W = Q88.3 Fontenrose.12
While there are parallels for these phrases from non-oracular con-
texts, the combination of ‘asking’ and ‘not grudging to give’
strongly suggests the possibility of an allusion to oracular speech.
10 See Fernández-Delgado (1990, 214–17).

11 See Fontenrose (1978, 177–78).
12 See Fernández-Delgado (1990, 216).
6. and < are used of playing the lyre at 483 and
487. This verb belongs to a set of phrases that compare the playing
of the lyre with the consultation of an oracle (see p. 17–18), as it is
terminus technicus for consulting an oracle; cf. h.Herm. 547, 564,
Orac.Delph. 470.2 P-W = Q259.2 Fontenrose 3)(# ) λ
κ φ7.
To these we should add () the description of Maia’s cave that progress-
ively resembles a temple or oracle: the cave contains a (*
(148), a phrase we meet in oracles (cf. Orac.Delph. 29.1, 216.1 P-W =
Q7.1 Fontenrose); Apollo is said to descend the stony threshold
( "7! ) C* 233, which is elsewhere reserved for the
Pythian temple; cf. n. ad loc.) into the cave, which has three adytoi (247;
cf. n. ad loc. and Orac.Delph. 94.12, 408.7 P-W = Q146.12, L100.7 Fon-
tenrose). And (") the reference to Apollo’s omniscience at 467 !L ξ
φ !λ # σ ρ« which can be linked to the oracle’s proclamation
of omniscience.13
(ii) Vocabulary of treaties and contracts (see notes ad loc.)

1. μ« ( λ < (312): Hermes asks for arbitration from a third
party.
2. # $")"9 (! * (393) is reminiscent of the so-called ‘anti-de-
ceit’ clauses found in treaties.
3. « φ)*( !7 (507). φ)*( implies a solemn pact
sealed by the exchange of oaths; note that it is the arbitrator, to
whom Hermes appeals at 312, who achieves this agreement between
the two gods.
4. !1") … !* (527–28), refers to Apollo’s pact of friendship
with Hermes that is validated through oath.
(iii) Finally, the verb ))& (‘to play a false note’ at 488) may
be perceived as a technical term; cf. )*«/ )!*« found
in (late) technical writing: D.H. Comp. 11.8 and Porph. in Harm. p. 20
Düring.14
13 Cf. Dobson (1979, 352 with n. 8).

14 Not listed in Franklin (2003).
48 Introduction
3. Two further peculiarities of this Hymn’s style should be pointed out.

(i) The poet has a tendency toward asyndeton; cf. 17, 25, 94, 109, 111,
151, 160, 175, 237, 263, 266, 267, 292, 332, 336, 370, 378, 382, 384, 438,
455, 466, 472, 478, 482, 512, 567. (ii) There is also a high number of par-
enthetic phrases; cf. 76, 80, 165, 208, 289, 315–18, 376, 378, 426, 430,
549.
4.1.2 Formulaic phrases15

Here I concentrate on phrases that present special interest. The interpre-
tation of some of the following data is necessarily subjective, but I
believe it is reasonable to draw the following conclusions. The poet of
h.Herm. sometimes creates new phrases or re-interprets old ones. He
appears to go out of his way at times to avoid using available Homeric
formulae, while his diction suggests the knowledge of such Homeric
antecedents. We may also note the presence of some formulaic doublets,
which suggest that the principle of formulaic economy is not strictly ad-
hered to. It is also possible that some deviations from Homeric preced-
ent were dictated by the sense of the passage. In some cases we may be
justified in detecting the poet’s intention to parody specific sections of
hexameter poems or his humorous re-use of a formulaic phrase in a new
context. Some formulaic material, finally, may sometimes aim at linking
Hermes to other mythological figures known for their cunning. It is fair
to say that the poet consciously engages with the inherited formulaic
material in a way that is in keeping with his overall self-consciousness.
4.1.2.1 Doublets within the Homeric Hymn to Hermes:

1. :μ« # 1« ¹*« (28) ~ :μ« # 1« E
« (145): these
occur in the same sedes and are confined to this poem.
2. :μ« Ν) « ¹*« (101) ~ :μ« $)μ« ¹*« (432).16 Line 101 is hu-
morous: this clausula is elsewhere used in hexameter poetry from
Hesiod to [Orpheus] of another cattle-rustler, Heracles (see n. ad
loc.). As an infant Hermes lacks $) 7, and this is the crucial point
15 For the formulaic diction of h.Herm., see Cantilena (1984, 241–63). Boettcher (1905) pro-
duced lists that document the affinity of h.Herm. with the Homeric hexameter.
of his defence speeches. At 432 $)*« may look forward to the

‘splendid deeds of the banquet’ ($)U«) which Hermes instructs
Apollo to attend at 476; hence the doublet may be motivated.
3. μ« — 9 ( (155) ~ μ« $)) (7). μ« — 9 ( is con-
fined in archaic hexameter to our poem (cf. 6717 and 400) and re-
appears at PGM 6.27.
4. Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) (215) ~ :μ« λ [(« ¹*« (243). The
reason for this doublet may be sought in the poet’s tendency to jux-
tapose the two gods also in a structural way in the verse: 214 ends
with :μ« K «. Thus 214 and 215 end with a clausula
that does not mention either god’s mother but emphasizes the two
gods’ common father.
5. :μ« λ M« ¹ (301) ~ )1 M« ¹ (439),
)
(504), 1 (551); cf.
' (Od. 8.335, h.Hom. 18.12, P.Derv. col. vi 4).
The existence of metrical equivalents, especially in the vocative,
should not cause any surprise, given the theological nature of the
text. Cf. Cantilena (1982, 180–81). The same applies to:
6. K))7« E
« (304) ~ L« #A φ*(« (294; cf. h.Hom.
29.13 / !* « E
«); and
6.1 [(« $)μ« ¹*« (314/500) ~ [(« λ :μ« ¹*« (243/321).
7. )9( λ @« (358) ~ )(« μ« ' (290). Fer-
nández-Delgado (1990, 211) considers 358 as an example of a for-
mula used humorously in a new context, comparing Il. 1.47 where
Apollo is said to move to the Greek camp λ @«.
8. (' (« !φ(«) !! /( (511) ~ ( μ« #)
/( (108).
4.1.2.2 Meaningful substitutions

There are a number of instances in h.Herm. in which the poet seems to
have avoided the use of existing Homeric phrases, often for semantic
reasons.
17 h.Herm. 67 )(« μ« — 9
( ~ Il. 15.324 )(« μ« $))
.
50 Introduction
1. () ( (27); cf. Il. 14.347 () ( (metrically ad-
missible here). In the Iliad vegetation is springing from the earth
during Zeus and Hera’s lovemaking, hence - is in order there.
2. $! $)7 (87); Il. 18.561 " ! $)7 (same sedes)
is metrically admissible here. Od. 6.293 ) # $)7 could
also have been used here with slight modification. The choice of
$! may be deliberate in view of 91: the vineyard has not yet
borne fruit, and the poet points to the appearance of the first vine-
shoots; cf. LfgrE, s.v. $ 1a.
3. *!! φ« (94); γ« @, a verse-beginning abundantly attested
in early hexameter, could have been used here. The otherwise unat-
tested *!! φ« (an emendation of Chalcocondyles’) may intend
to draw attention to the brevity of Hermes’ preceding speech.
4. ( 1< (97) is prosodically equivalent to L< "7
(Il. 8.488* et al.); but the poet has already used S φ( in the
verse.
5. # λ /@ (« (123). Il. 13.565* # λ (« could have been
used here, but there does not seem to be any reason for this substi-
tution.
6. μ * « !φ( [(« « ¹*« (189). Il. 7.23 μ
* « ! Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) could have been
used here. This choice seems meaningful: the similarity to 89 (μ
* « !φ( M(« « ¹*«) invites us to compare
Hermes and Apollo’s encounter with the Old Man.
7. « $# Ν)) (193). Il. 15.244* *!φ $# Ν)) could have
been used here; there does not seem any special reason for this vari-
ation.
8. φ
W# ² (212); cf. Il. 22.77 _ W# ² , which could have
stood here.
9. )) ξ φ * λ Ν φ b 1φ(« (250): the poet
could have used !)* for φ * and Ν" b
instead of Ν φ, but chose to emphasize the colour of Maia’s
clothes; cf. n. ad loc.
10. μ # $ « $ 1« (272), μ # $ « $ 1
(380), μ # $ « $ 1! (459). These clausulae are con-
fined to h.Herm. Epic normally uses $ « ); the
poet’s preference for $ 1 may be attributed to the emphasis
on oratory and Hermes’ courtroom defence speeches.
11. C ² /9 (! ( λ ¹)! )*!) (317); for the first

hemistich, the poet could have adapted Od. 1.56 λ ξ ) !
( λ ¹)! )*!). There is an emphasis on /( in this
Hymn (cf. 76, 108, 166, 447, 465, 511), to which this verse conforms.
12. " ) (348): the poet could have adapted 7!!
) (cf. Il. 1.483, Od. 2.213, 2.429, h.Herm. 200); "
should be understood literally; cf. n. ad loc.
13. $)(( $ 1! (368; cf. 561) is peculiar to our poet (it is
found elsewhere only at Doroth. p. 405.18 = Heph.Astr. in Cat.
Cod. Astr. p. 297.13); the Homeric $)(( ) could have
been employed.18 The reason may perhaps be sought again in the
emphasis on rhetoric in the Hymn.
14. E ")9
! )5φ « (413); Od. 15.319 E Q (
* could have been used instead, but it seems that
)5φ « is motivated by the effect that Hermes’ song will have
on Apollo’s wits; see n. ad loc.
15. λ 3φ ! ! $7 (442); Od. 8.498 c! ! $7
could have been used here. This substitution may be attributed
to the fact that our Hymn focuses on music as something that can
be taught rather than simply being a gift from a god (cf. Il. 6.157,
Od. 8.498, h.Dem. 220, 261); hence φ & ‘instruct’ is in order
here (cf. Od. 10.549).
16. # $! !« (468); cf. Il. 15.50 # $!
&«. There does not seem to be any semantic reason for this
substitution.
17. /* )"* (517); Il. 3.265 et al. λ /* -
)"* could have been used here (with $ @!); once
again there does not seem to be any semantic reason for the substi-
tution.
18. K!/*« ! (521) = K!/ λ ! Il. 2.112
could have been employed here, and once again there is no semantic
need for this substitution.
19. It is noteworthy that the poet uses at 567 $ 1)« Q) « "«,
metrically equivalent to )« Q) « "« (Il. 9.466*, 23.166*,
Od. 1.92*, 4.320*, 9.46*, Hes. Op. 795*; it is restored [Hes.] fr.
18 has )< at 368.

52 Introduction
198.11*). In all these instances, )« Q) « "« is preceded

by a reference to sheep (
)), and perhaps these two categories of
animals were perceived as one unit in formulaic diction. The Hymn
poet, who uses )« "« at 216 and 370, mentions sheep
(7)!) at 570.
20. It should be added that the poet avoids the use of Homeric phrases
for the setting or rising of the sun and the arrival of a new day; see
197n. and 371n.
4.1.2.3 Verbal Echoes of Other Archaic Hexameter Poems in the

Homeric Hymn to Hermes
In this section I list only those verbal echoes which I consider meaning-
ful; on this topic, section 4.3 (p. 65–73) should also be consulted.
Homer:
1. (π # Kμ / μ« |) ! ) "(! (53–54; cf. 420, 502). This
is a humorous application of a formulaic phrase (! )
"(!) that occurs always in this sedes in Homer and Hesiod and
designates sounds associated with battle that cause fear and awe; cf.
Il. 2.334, 15.648, 16.277, 21.593. At Od. 17.542 it describes the reson-
ance of Telemachus’ ominous sneezing; cf. 420, where ! )
"(! is followed by )!! ξ d"« #A*)), a junctura
that can be paralleled by Od. 17.542. The comic potential of ! -
) "(! here was understood by Sophocles, who presents
the Satyrs in his Ichneutae as scared by the sound of the lyre.19
2. ξ φ !λ Ν)) (62) is an adaptation of the Odyssean
*« ¹ Ν)) (2.92, 13.381, 18.283) used in this sedes of
Penelope’s deceiving the suitors. If this is a conscious reference, then
the poet associates Hermes with another cunning character.
3. & (64, 287) is the reapplication of an Iliadic formula
(11.551, 17.660) used in similes in which a lion wishes to attack
cattle but is prevented by the watchdogs and the javelins thrown at
19 For Brillante (2001, 116) the formula retains some of its sinister associations given that the
sound of the lyre is produced from an animal that was deprived of its life.
it; of course, Hermes will be successful in his attack, no one will pre-
vent him, and the watchdogs will not react.20
4. Kμ !!λ 7! !) φ | C! )!
(83–84); cf. Il. 24.340–41, Od. 5.44–45 (C ’ 3’) Kμ !!λ
7! ) ) | $" *! / 1!: here we have imitation
of both form and meaning. The verb occurs in the same sedes, as
does the phrase for sandals (although a different phrase is used in
h.Herm.); the effect of the enjambment is also reproduced. Instead
of a reference to the sandals’ splendour (divine, golden), the poet
of h.Herm. emphasizes their makeshift nature. In both instances
Hermes is about to embark on a mission: in Homer he is sent on by
Zeus and his carrying out the orders will benefit a human char-
acter (Priam, Odysseus); in h.Herm. the god embarks on his thiev-
ish mission which will (initially) harm Apollo. See also above,
p. 31–32.
5. 3 (127) is normally used metaphorically of agricultural
works (cf. Il. 12.283, Od. 4.318, h.Dem. 93, Tyrt. 5.7, Hsch. 2330);
here the poet has re-literalized the metaphor and seems to under-
stand by it the pieces of fat meat that Hermes is cutting.21
6. *« (154); cf. Od. 5.97* ( ) »« )*) *. This
is the first reference to Odyssey 5 that begins a string of allusions to
the description of Calypso’s cave, elaborated in 228ff. In both texts
this phrase is used when Hermes (who has put on his sandals ear-
lier; cf. Od. 5.44–45 ~ h.Herm. 83–84) arrives at a nymph’s cave.
7.
7, ! , 1 | 7, χ« )
φ !λ F!) ρ (163–4) ~ Il. 20.200–202, 431–33
P()U(, κ κ !! (1 —« | 3) <!, λ
!φ ρ λ Cμ« | ξ « # F!) 7!!.
This is a humorous adaptation of Aeneas’ answer to Achilles’
taunts before battle; but Hermes is truly a 7 and far
from a warrior; see p. 32.
8. * $ 7! (178); cf. Od. 10.267 μ *
$ 7!« (of Autolycus); see below, p. 65–66 on the relation be-
tween Hermes and Autolycus. Hermes is yet again compared to a
cunning, thievish character through the use of formulaic material.

54 Introduction
9. #O/(! $φ Ω )7 Ν)!« | 4μ !φ -

f(*/ (186–87) seems to be an expansion with variation of
Il. 2.506 #O/(!* # ¹ μ P!7 $)μ Ν)!« (cf. h.Apol.
230): h.Herm. retains the beginning and ending of the Homeric
verse while glossing ¹ * and P!7.
10. χ κ λ (196); cf. Il. 18.549 μ κ λ
. In the Iliad this phrase expresses the poet’s admiration
for Hephaestus’ skill. In h.Herm. Apollo utters this phrase when
explaining to the Old Man the disappearance of his herd. For the
possible implicit comparison of Hermes to Hephaestus (another
cunning character), cf. 49n. and 52n.
11. « $!φ)μ ) (221); cf. Od. 11.539, 11.573, 24.13, where it
is used of the meadow in the Underworld; see 221n.
12. λ !* C *!. | W5 ! )"Ω « T -
* (255–56); cf. Il. 8.12–13 )(λ« C *!
)1! OΚ)*· | _ ')Ω W5 « T
*; see 254–77n. and 255–56n.
13. μ ξ )« ρ $ 1 (277, 311); cf. Il. 2.486 π« ξ )« ρ
$ 1 C F; see 277n. and p. 32.
14. (9
φ «,) E , &! (307); cf. Il.
22.15 (3")5« #,) E , S)@ . There are
semantic reasons for the substitution of S)o@ with &-
! in the Hymn: the poet wished to emphasize the anger of
Apollo, who had threatened even to cast Hermes into Tartarus (cf.
also 495 &« /)!).
15. Lines 313–32 (Apollo and Hermes go to Olympus) seem to allude
to Il. 21.504–508 (Artemis and Leto rush to Olympus); see 313–32n.
(end).
16. φ « )! $)(( $ 1 (561) and 51
- # $))7) ! (563) seem to be inspired from Od.
14.125 51# C# )! $)( 7!!.
Hesiod:
1. *) 1 (66); cf. Hes. Op. 83; see 66n. and Fernández-Delgado
(1990, 212–13).
2. )(« # C )7 /(« (76); cf. Hes. Th. 547, 560 (= Prome-
theus) and Od. 4.455 (= the Old Man of the Sea). The use of this
phrase associates Hermes with cunning mythological characters
who had the ability either to alter their shape (Old Man) or conceal
and deceive (Prometheus).
3. :μ« Ν) « ¹*« (101) is elsewhere used of Heracles; see 101n.
4. 3 ) # 3 R& (120) ~ Hes. Op. 382 3 # 3 ) &-
!. The allusion is not certain since the phrase is proverbial. If,
however, we are right to detect a Hesiodic reference, then it is cer-
tainly humorous since whereas Hesiod instructs his brother to work
hard and be just, Hermes is busy dividing the meat from the cows he
stole. See also 120n.
5. # C# (! (243); cf. Hes. Th. 550–51 ZL« # Νφ
7 Ω« | W# C# (! *); see below p. 68–69.
6. λ μ $μ ")φ $ 1!! | Sφ 1! W&!
² @« 3 λ 3 (278–79); cf. Hes. Th. 826–27 ¹
R!! | !!9 (« φ)9
! K# Sφ 1! $ !!; see
278–79n. and p. 33, 69.
7. ² @« 3 λ 3 (279); cf. [Hes.] fr. 294.2 where this line-
ending is used of Argus. Note that shortly after Hermes is called
again #A φ*(« (294).
The Homeric Hymn to Demeter:

1. ()!(« )7« … 3/ (37); cf. h.Dem. 228–30 Κ# Ν #
()!( ()7! Κ# K*α | ρ $
φ K)*, | ρ # ()!(« )7« !)μ
!*. This is no secure evidence for the dependence of h.Herm.
on h.Dem.; it is likely that both Hymns are drawing on a common
source of magical formulae; see Richardson ad loc. for the incanta-
tory nature of h.Dem. 228–30.
2. 231–32 Sκ # ¹ *!! … | ; cf. h.Dem. 277–78 Sκ #
¹ *!! ( $μ ) | ! . It is possible that
this passage of h.Dem. was in the poet’s mind; cf. h.Herm. 237 where
Hermes is said to ! # 3! 7().
The Homeric Hymn to Apollo:

1. )) ξ
) 1 (232) = h.Apol. 304; note that in
h.Apol. )) is used adverbially. This repetition could be acciden-
tal; but see p. 70–73 for the possibility of a relation between h.Apol.
and h.Herm.
2. Ν)) (550); cf. h.Apol. 261 $))# 3 ;
56 Introduction
Kμ /λ P (! (555) recurs at h.Apol. 269*;

! (563); cf. h.Apol. 270 7!;
!κ φ (565); cf. h.Apol. 273 !κ φ $φ(@«.
If these similarities are not by chance, they suggest that the poet of
h.Herm. had the Telphousa episode of h.Apol. in mind. In this case,
Apollo would be refusing Hermes the gift of prophecy but granting him
an alternative form, just as Telphousa had attempted to dissuade
Apollo from establishing his oracle by her spring by proposing an al-
ternative location; in doing this Apollo is using phraseology similar to
that used by Telphousa when deceiving him in the Homeric Hymn de-
voted to him.
4.1.2.4 Formulaic phrases confined to h.Herm.

There are a number of phrases that are not attested elsewhere in archaic
hexameter but seem to be treated as formulae by the poet.
1. 46 “[verb] xcvv 1« (-) E
« (-
)” (46) is a common
formula in the Hymn; cf. also 96, 130, 150, 253, 316, 404, 571.
1« E
« recurs at Hes. Th. 938 in a passage that contains
the usual elements of a hymnic proem (name of the deity, parentage,
the god’s main function).
2. “$φ (70; @ 186)” is also peculiar to h.Herm. In
Homer $φ is found exclusively at line-end.
3. *« … ) (140; cf. 345) is unique to our poet and may be
formed under the influence of /@/ ).
4. κ # E
« 1! $" )! (162; cf. 260, 463).
While there are formulaic parallels for the components of this
speech introduction (see the apparatus similium), the line as a whole
occurs only in this poem.
5. Ν ) * (172; cf. 359* and 234). This formulaic phrase
does not recur elsewhere in archaic hexameter, not even in the
Odyssey where one might have expected it. It reappears at [Orph.]
H. 69.4, but there does not seem to be any further dependence be-
tween the two passages. The formula may have been created on the
basis of the association between *« and &*φ«/ «, and
may point to Hermes’ association with the Underworld.
6. ) (197) and ) )-
) (371). The irregular lengthening of at 371 suggests
that it may be a modification of 197. These unique phrases belong

to the poet’s internal formulaic system.22
7. :μ« )) (323; cf. 397, 504); there are formulaic
precedents for the combination of :μ« and ))7« in this
sedes; cf. also )) 1 ( which is found at the same sedes
as our )) at Il. 16.85 and [Hes.] fr. 193.11 (see
323n.)
4.2 Metre and Prosody
4.2.1 Dactyls and Spondees

The following table indicates the percentage of dactyls and spondees in
h.Herm. compared to the corresponding percentages in the remaining
archaic epic poems.23
Table A
Iliad Odyssey Hesiod Homeric Hymns h.Herm.

5 da 19.2 % 18.6 % 17.3 % 17.7 % 27.2 %
4 da + 1 sp 42.6 % 40.6 % 40.6 % 41 % 43.4 %
3 da + 2 sp 29.7 % 31.9 % 32 % 30.4 % 23.1 %
2 da + 3 sp 7.9 % 8.3 % 9.2 % 8.7 % 5.7 %
1 da + 4 sp 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.9 % 0.7 % 0.5 %
Distribution of Dactyls and Spondees

Five Dactyls 3 Dactyls / 2 Spondees (= 134)
DDDDD 158 SSDDD 32
SDSDD 8
4 Dactyls / 1 Spondee (= 252) SDDSD 32
SDDDD 89 SDDDS 4
DSDDD 87 DSSDD 14
DDSDD 24 DSDSD 27
DDDSD 42 DSDDS 5
22 Cf. van Nortwick (1975, 41–43).

23 For the data regarding all the poems except for h.Herm. I rely on LaRoche (1898 a, b). See
also van Groningen (1953, 202).
58 Introduction
4 Dactyls / 1 Spondee 3 Dactyls / 2 Spondees

DDDDS 10 DDSSD 7
DDSDS 1
DDDSS 4
2 Dactyls / 3 Spondees (= 33) 1 Dactyl / 4 Spondees (=3)
SSSDD 9 SSSSD 1
SSDSD 6 SSDSS 1
SSDDS 2 DSSSS 1
SDSSD 4
SDSDS 1
SDDSS 3
DSSSD 3
DSSDS 3
DDSSS 2
The distribution of spondees in h.Herm. can also be represented as fol-
lows:
Table B
1st foot 2nd foot 3rd foot 4th foot 5th foot
Spondees 192 191 78 133 37
H.Herm. shows a marked preponderance of dactyls. In archaic hexa-

meter verses containing one spondee are the most common, followed
by hexameters containing two spondees. While verses with one spondee
are common in h.Herm., their percentage is somewhat higher than in
the rest of archaic hexameter (43.4 % as opposed to 42.6 % in the Iliad).
The second most frequent category represented in h.Herm. are verses
that are entirely dactylic; the difference in the corresponding percentage
is more pronounced (27.2 % as opposed to 19.2 % of the Iliad). The per-
centage of lines with two or three spondees is necessarily lower than the
corresponding categories in archaic hexameter.
As shown in Table B, spondees tend to concentrate in the first two
feet of the line. Third foot spondees are rare; this is no surprise in view
of the preference for the caesura /. Thirty-seven
out of 580 lines (6.4 %) are spondeazontes; this is somewhat higher than
in Homeric verse (5 %).24 Twenty-seven of these instances have Homeric
24 See West (1982, 37). Maas (1962) §83 observes that the monosyllabic tenth biceps is
“almost always part of a word which is the last of the line.” There are but a few exceptions
in h.Herm.: 243 = 321, 467, and 570.
precedents or consist of divine names necessary in the context of this

Hymn.25
4.2.2 Caesurae, Bridges, Word-ends, and Enjambment

When referring to metrical sedes and caesurae, I use Fränkel’s division
of the hexameter as modified by Porter (1951, 16); I reproduce Porter’s
schema for the sake of convenience:
A2 A1 B2 B1 C1 C2
1 2
1½
3 4
3½
5
5½ 6
7 8
7½
9 10
9½
11
12
2 4 6 8 10 12
1. The masculine caesura occurs in 170 verses (29.3 %); of these only
one is hephthemimeral (at 381). The ratio between feminine and mas-
culine caesurae exceeds by far the proportion of Homeric verse (4:3),
being roughly 4:1.6. A bucolic diaeresis exists in 323 lines (55.7 %),
a somewhat higher percentage than in Homeric verse (47 %).26
2. Only line 208 displays a (mild) break after the ninth element.27 This
verse is part of the Old Man’s reply, and the break is caused by
!φξ« # C ρ, one of the many parentheses in the poem, and
we may detect a conscious effect here (see 208n.).
3. Hermann’s Law regarding the avoidance of word-end at the fourth
trochee is observed without exceptions.
4. Meyer’s First Law, that words beginning in the first foot do not end
between the short syllables of the second foot, is violated in the fol-
lowing cases:28 208 (3<), 258 (W5 !), 267 ( ), 297
(!!« ), 379 (³« C F #), 380 (C# Kξ C*), 386
( ) ), 396 (W(« ), 401 (E
« ), 406 (*«),
418 (cf. 386), 428 ( ), 437 (7 ), 442 ($*),
25 Homeric precedent exists for 9, 11, 144, 190, 220, 221, 344, 411, 441, 492, 505, 542, 555,
570, 578; divine names: 18, 22, 73, 84, 115, 236, 243, 294, 321, 322, 387, 414. The lines lack-
ing exact parallels are 23, 33, 104 (though forms of $ 7« are found in spondaic
endings; cf. Il. 6.447, 23.453), 159, 369, 467 (but cf. h.Aphr. 116 K ( σ ρ), 488,
503, 544 (but cf. Il. 2.393, 11.453), and 546.
26 I rely on West’s data for the percentages in Homeric verse; see West (1982, 36, 154). For the
distribution of the A, B, and C caesurae in the Hymn, see Porter (1951).
27 See Maas (1962) §88.
28 For a brief definition of Meyer’s three laws, see West (1997, 225–26).
60 Introduction
451 (/ ), 480 (Κ ()« ), 488 (Κ« ), 495 (cf. 386),
503 ("*« ), 513 (( ), 564 (3), 569 (/ !),
573 (Ν*« ).
5. Giseke’s Law, that words beginning in the first foot do not end at
the fourth element, is violated in the following verses: 8 (
) 1«), 150 (!!« # Ν ), 157 ($7/), 255 (λ
/)29, 308 (" Q/#), 348 (Ν))( ), 369 (( 7«
), 381 (#H) ξ )#), 388 (μ ! ), 475 ($))# λ
σ ).
6. Meyer’s Second Law, that words of iambic shape are not placed im-
mediately before the caesura, is violated at: 38 (9 Υ
(«), 90 (φ),
Υ 256 ()"@), 258 (7 ), 310 ("*«), 311
92 (@), 117 ( «),
("*«), 360 ()), 380 (3"(), 406 (@), 437 ("), 573 (@).
7. Meyer’s Third Law, that verses with a masculine caesura have a
break either at the fourth longum or at the bucolic diaeresis or at
both places, is violated at the following verses: 4 ( φ)*(), 23
(K5( φ«), 81 ( λ !«), 100 (M(), 107
( # ' !7), 354 (μ # φ !), 380 (μ # $ «),
384 (C *!(), 398 (# # #A)φ), 510 (² # K)).
8. Hilberg’s Law, that when there is word-end at position 4, the
preceding biceps is disyllabic, is not observed at the following lines:
1 (8), 18 "« (guaranteed), 20 (7), 52 (cf. 20), 142 (ρ5#), 266
Υ
(3 ), 336 (i ), 356 (cf. 20), 429 (), Υ
443 ( ), 475 (),
579 (8). At 366 the version of the verse cited in some manu-
scripts (see app.crit.) also violates this law: Ν)) (o); cf. Il.
7.358* = 12.232*).
9. Naeke’s Law, that the bucolic diaeresis is not preceded by contracted
fourth biceps, is not observed at the following verses30: 67 ()(«),
105 (φ* "), 116 ("«, though "*« could be read), 123
(C), 175 (φ)(), 207 ($)
«), 223 (Ν ), 237 (7#),
253 ( !(1), 254 ( ), 263 (Ν))), 265 ( ) ), 283
(σ), 286 ($ /7!«), 290 (cf. 67), 314 ([(«), 340 ("«, though
"*« could be read), 343 ($), 358 (cf. 67), 363 (cf. 263), 377
(cf. 265), 457 (, possibly corrupt), 524 ($ ) ), 542
($ ), 546 (7!«), 571 ($!!), 580 (Ν))(«).
29 Cf. Il. 12.345*, 12.358*, 21.309*. is proclitic; cf. West (1982, 25).
30 Cf. W. S. Allen (1983, 5–7).
10. Tiedke’s Law, concerning the avoidance of word-end at both 7 and 9

(i.e. the fourth and fifth longum), is violated at: 9 (L« (1«
#), 21 ( ¹ ) ), 33 (/)« R !), 47 (Ω * «), 63
(φ ¹ ) ), 64 (Ν ), 70 ( R ), 133 ( »
¹
«), 144 (Κ (), 214 (:μ« ), 230 (= 214), 423
()1 9 Υ
( ), 425 (j )«), 441 (_ (), 467 (ξ φ !λ
#), 578 (φ) ().
11. Monosyllabic verse-ends occur in the following lines:31 97,32 113,33
216,34 254 (involving "« as 216), 273 (Kμ /@), 370 (same
as 216), 407,35 469 (( Z1«), 494 (same as 407), 506 (same
as 469), 540 (C 1 Z1«), 567,36 and 57037. These amount to
2.2 % of the verses. From the parallels listed in the footnotes we may
conclude that the poet of h.Herm. follows Homeric practice in the
handling of monosyllabic verse-endings, and in one case (113) he
may be extending Homeric usage.
12. H.Herm. does not differ significantly from other archaic poems in
terms of enjambment. Especially when one considers the so-called
necessary enjambment, whose percentage is significantly higher
in literate poets, h.Herm. exhibits a lower percentage (22.8 %) than
the Iliad (26.7 %), the Odyssey (27.5 %), the Theogony (26.4 %), the
Works and Days (29.1 %), h.Aphr. (28.3 %), h.Apol. (26.9 %), h.Dem.
(37.2 %), and the pseudo-Hesiodic Shield (33.6 %).38 H.Herm. has a
31 On monosyllabics in the hexameter, see Korzeniewski (1968, 32).

32 = ( 1<. 1< is found as a line-end in Il. 10.252 () 1<), Hes. Th. 726 ($φλ
1<), and six times in the Odyssey (4.429, 4.574, 7.283 $" !( 1<, which is the
metrically equivalent of our ( 1< but beginning with a vowel; Od. 5.294, 9.69,
12.315 C * 1<).
33 ) ξ φ)*<. φ)*< is used as a verse-end in the Iliad (16.123 / φ)*<, 23.228
1! ξ φ)*<, metrically and structurally equivalent to ) ξ φ)*<).
34 )« "«. Cf. Il. 15.547* and Od. 8.60*.
35 C ! / 7 is fairly well-documented as a line-end (9x in the Iliad, 8x in the Odyssey,
and once in h.Dem.)
36 = Q) « "«, which is well-paralleled as a verse-end (4x in the Iliad, 5x in the Odyssey,
once in the Works and Days; it is supplemented in [Hes.] fr. 198.11), sometimes preceded by
)«.
37 = C /@, also well-paralleled (4x in the Iliad, once in the Theogony, once in the
Shield, and twice in h.Dem.)
38 These data derive from Barnes (1979, 7). A major problem in discussing enjambment is
that scholars often use different terms for the various types of enjambment and that the
number of types of enjambment and the categorization of these types depends sometimes
62 Introduction
higher percentage of unenjambed lines (44.8 %) than the Theogony

(34.6 %), h.Apol. (44.0 %), h.Dem. (40 %), and the Shield (37.1 %),
but lower than the Iliad (47.0 %), the Odyssey (50.0 %), the Works
and Days (46.6 %), and h.Aphr. (47.4 %). In terms of unperiodic en-
jambment, h.Herm. has a higher percentage (32.4 %) than most
other archaic hexameter poems (Iliad: 26.3 %, Odyssey: 22.5 %,
Works and Days: 24.3 %, h.Aphr. 24.2 %, h.Apol. 29.1 %, h.Dem.
22.7 %, Shield: 29.2 %), except for the Theogony (39.0 %). But it is
doubtful whether these data can reveal anything regarding
h.Herm.’s composition (oral vs. written).39
4.2.3 Other prosodic features

1. Hiatus occurs in the following lines:40 17,41 21,42 63 (same as 21),
110,43 112, 124, 147,44 148,45 158, 230,46 239,47 447, 55848. In most
cases hiatus occurs at one of the caesurae: at the A1 caesura (158,
230), the B2 caesura (110, 147, 148), the B1 caesura (447), at the
C1 caesura (or bucolic diaeresis, 17), and the C2 caesura (21, 63, 112,
on subjective criteria. The most reliable results would be obtained if the various poems
were examined by a single scholar using consistently the same criteria. For an extensive
treatment of the subject see Higbie (1990).
39 The use of enjambment as a criterion for determining a poem’s orality has been challenged
by Friedrich (2000).
40 I omit those cases where hiatus may be explained by the presence of initial ζ-. I also do not
consider 45 a case of hiatus. As Bakker (1988, 8) observes, in view of the etymology of
- (< _ζ; cf. Latin -ve), an initial vowel after - should not be deemed as being in hiatu. _ζ#
Ρ may be assumed and therefore I print # Ρ.
41 !) - &. Hiatus after - in the same sedes is found also at Il. 6.422
(- 5A« F!), where a formulaic phrase (5A« F!) is combined with -.
Note that !) - recurs in the same sedes at h.Apol. 441.
42 Cf. Il. 17.464* ¹ ) λ φ ) and 18.504* ¹ ) λ 1 )).
43 = )9 ( Ν. The hiatus may be due to the modification and transposition of the
formula Ν )9 (!.
44 = S 9
) «; cf. Il. 5.5 $! # S ) ) . However, S *« is
scanned with -0- at Hes. Op. 674.
45 = Ν < ; cf. Od. 9.312, a line that has exactly the same metrical structure as 148.
7!« # Ν <7)!
). Of course, Ν ’ is also possible.
46 = $" !( )*/!; cf. Il. 18.268 where $" !( is followed by a strong pause.
47 = ‘ C*, unless written '*. But see Wyatt (1992, 21) and n. ad loc.
48 = Ν)) Ν))9 (; cf. Hes. Op. 713* with West’s n.
124).49 Only in two instances does hiatus appear in a part of the

verse where no break occurs: 239 (a dubious case) and 558 (a highly
formulaic case).
2. Metrical lengthening occurs in the following verses:50 12 (Ν),
23,51 75 ()«), 196 ( 1«),52 310 ("*«), 379 ("*«), 345
( *«), 371 ()53.
3. Correptio epica occurs 154 times. As the following table shows, it is
completely avoided in position 7½ (its occurrence there would
amount to a violation of Hermann’s Law), while it is rare in posi-
tions 3½, 4, and 9½. It appears most often before the bucolic diae-
resis, where the majority of shortened words consist of middle verb
forms or infinitives (7, "7). In the second most
common position (6) most examples involve .
Table C
Position 1½ 2 3½ 4 5½ 6 7½ 8 9½ 10
Occurrences 20 11 6 2 11 40 – 49 4 11
(13.0 %) (7.1 %) (3.9 %) (1.3 %) (7.1 %) (26.0 %) (31.8 %) (2.6 %) (7.1 %)
4. A combination of a mute and liquid lengthens a short final vowel in

position 9 at 312; in position 4 at 400; in position 2 at 428; and in
position 4 at 487.54
5. Correptio attica (a short vowel remains short before the combi-
nation of a mute and a liquid) occurs at 86 (C 7!«)
and 348 ( "); at word-boundaries at 6 (3),0 253 (1!0 ),
265 ()
0 ), 294 (Ν ),
0 332 (*0), 560 ()0 ), and 575 (-
( 0).
6. Short vowel lengthened before liquid or nasal: 53 ( ; Υ cf. 419,
Υ
501) and 425 (; note that the x family has ))« here).
49 For the admittance of hiatus at the caesurae, see van Leeuwen (1894, 76–77).
50 #
I exclude from this list common cases such « #
(9), or « (44). In 234 the
digamma may be operative ( *¯ ζ ("*)«); for metrical lengthening, see Thumb
(1959), Wyatt (1969), and West (1982, 38).
51 = K5( φ« Ν , perhaps because of the adaptation of Il. 9.582 C ""Ω«
K5( φ« ).
52 Metrical lengthening of 1« in the same sedes occurs also at Il. 15.351.
53 Perhaps an adaptation of 197 ) .
54 On the treatment of muta cum liquida in Homeric verse, see Isler (1908, 22).
64 Introduction
7. Synecphonesis or synizesis occurs at 113 (( ), 175

(φ)() 292 (same as 175), 413 (E ).55
8. Crasis occurs at 173 ( $@).
9. Elision occurs in every position in the verse except 11; it is rare in
positions 3½ (4x) and 7½ (2x). This avoidance must be attributed to
the operation of Meyer’s First Law and Hermann’s Bridge, respect-
ively. In fact, 379 ³« C F # 3)!! violates Meyer’s First Law.
As for elisions occurring at 7½, they both involve prepositions that
form a single metrical unit with the following word (332, 418);
hence no violation of Hermann’s Bridge should be assumed. Elision
is also rare in position 5 (4x) where it is confined to verb forms (50,
264 : 364, 496). In all four cases the elision falls on the caesura,
where or are usually elided.56 Most examples of elision in the
poem involve indeclinable words (mainly particles and preposi-
tions); the highest proportion of elided noun/verb forms occurs at
positions 5½, 8, 9½, and 10. In the majority of declinable words, an
- is elided. On λ ! instead of # 1! printed by earlier
editors at 152, see n. ad loc.
10. Observance and neglect of digamma:57 A list of observances and
neglects of digamma in h.Herm. may be found in AHS xcix–c (27
observances, 49 neglects). A good number of these neglects are not
certain, as they involve forms that contain the - φ) ! *.58
The absolutely certain neglects are thus 30. For the significance of
the statistical data derived from the observance or neglect of di-
gamma, see p. 143–44.
11. Miscellaneous: (i) For the scansion of $ *« 0 at 106, see n. ad loc.
An overview of the development of the original accusative plural
ending -« in the various dialects may be found at Buck GD §78
and §104.8. (ii) At 460 we meet ; see n. ad loc. and
55 See West (1966a, 100) and Richardson on h.Dem. 91.

56 Cf. Maas (1962) §139.
57 On the presence of digamma in the Homeric dialect, see the discussion in Chantraine, GH
I 106–57.
58 These are 18, 46, 129, 192, 202, 205, 215, 218, 227, 236, 333, 389, 403, 417, 431, 559, and
571. 46 Ϊ# 3« λ 3 could be restored as Ϊ# 3« λ ζ . 182 W# !!
might have been W ζ!!. At 472 ( # E ) # has been emended away already by
Matthiae; see n. ad loc. Cf. also 239 $) Q (<*!ζ) C*, which would be a particu-
larly harsh neglect (cf. Maas [1962] §132 and Chantraine, GH I 146–47).
Schulze QE 253. Adjectives ending in -«, indicating the material

something is made from, have usually a short --; cf. Schwyzer I 490
(§8).
4.3 Thematic Correspondences between the Homeric Hymn

to Hermes and Other Archaic Hexameter Poems
4.3.1 The Homeric Hymn to Hermes and the Odyssean tradition

The association between Hermes and Odysseus is deeply rooted in
archaic Greek thought.59 Both characters embody the quality of metis
which they use against the bie of their stronger opponents. Both are ex-
pert liars and have a special relationship to the poet: Odysseus is com-
pared to a bard at Od. 17.513–21 and usurps the role of the main nar-
rator during his apologoi; Hermes is the archetypal bard in the Hymn.
At Od. 19.394–97 we learn that Odysseus’ maternal grandfather,
Autolycus, surpassed everyone in thievishness and the ability to swear
equivocal oaths, these being the gifts of Hermes (χ« $ @«
! | )!19 ( # Ρ ) α μ« ¹ Cμ« 3 |
E «).60 At Il. 10.267 one of Autolycus’ thievish exploits is de-
scribed, namely how he stole a helmet ( 7) from Amyntor’s house,
into which he broke in by drilling a hole through its walls, μ
* $ 7!«; cf. Hermes’ threat at 178: ρ « P
μ * $ 7!, which may look back to the Iliadic pas-
sage. Autolycus was a cattle thief as well ([Apollod.] II 129) who had the
ability to make the stolen cows disappear ([Hes.] fr. 67a.5) or, interest-
ingly, to change their brands (!φ «).61 It will be remembered that
59 See Shelmerdine (1984) and Pratt (1993, esp. 63–73).

60 Marót (1961) suggests that Autolycus was a magician and takes Ρ « to refer not to oath
but to the magic incantations by which he subdued his adversaries.
61 Cf. Tzetzes on Lyc. 344: ² AC*) « )!19 ( « K "), )
b« λ "*« λ , « !φ « C λ )
L« !*« C, —« φ(! λ H!«. Cf. also Polyaen. 6.52: !φ«, AC-
)1 « "*« C )« )) «, « /()« " (< *)",
o
) /
7 ! ‘AC*) « 3 )5’ (‘he melted lead
into the cows’ [cloven] hooves, to which he had attached a seal forming the letters
[i.e. phrase] “Autolycus stole [sc. me]”). ² ξ κ AC*) « 1 $7)! « "*«,
² ξ !φ« # π « ! « 3< F/( " (
κ AC)1 )7; further Hyg. Fab. 201.
66 Introduction
Hermes’ cattle theft also involves the manipulation of footprints (both

his own, by wearing some makeshift sandals, and the cows’, by making
the animals walk backwards). Autolycus, furthermore, appears in some
sources as the son of Hermes.62
The connection between Hermes and Odysseus via Autolycus
(whether Hermes’ son or devotee) seems firm already, but the poet of
h.Herm. makes it even more explicit. Hermes and Odysseus share some
traditional epithets: )1 «, )1(«, and )7(«.63 To
these, we may add )« which is often, though not exclusively,
used of Odysseus. Our poet twice uses a formula for Hermes that is else-
where used only of Odysseus, (h.Herm. 271, 331;
cf. Od. 19.400).64
The Hymn also contains certain thematic allusions to the Odyssey
which lend further strength to the connection between the two char-
acters, as pointed out by Susan Shelmerdine: these are the description
of the surroundings of Maia’s cave (cf. 227–54n.) and possibly the simile
at 237–40 (cf. n. ad loc.).65 Shelmerdine detects also an allusion to
the episode of the Cattle of the Sun in Od. 12.66 She cites the following
evidence: (i) the epithets that describe the cattle in both stories
(S * «, C «); but since they are traditional, they are
of little value. (ii) Hermes’ appeal to Helios during his defence in Zeus’s
court; but this need not be an allusion: Hermes evokes the Sun precisely
because it is safe to do so, since he stole the cows at night. (iii) The simi-
62 Cf. [Hes.] fr. 64.15–18 π [sc. d)«] AC*) * d) )μ C7, |
μ ξ K(! ' ("*)) #A*)), | μ # σ# E !# 9
φ)*( | AC*) K))() #A φ*9 (. This passage reflects another sort

of competition between Hermes and Apollo. For Hermes as the father of Autolycus, see
also [Apollod.] I 112, Hyg. F. 200, Ovid, Met. 11.301–17; Eust. Il. III 65 (p. 804), Od. II 246
(p. 745); T Il. 10.266; Maronitis (1973, 161–66). A similar story circulated also concerning
Minos’ daughter Acacallis; cf. Philodem. p.euseb. P.Herc. 243 III, A.R. 4.1490b. See
Hirschberger (2004, 265) on [Hes.] fr. 64.14–18.
63 )1(« is elsewhere used of Odysseus with only two exceptions: Hephaestus at Il.
21.335 and Athena at h.Hom. 28.2. For )1 «, see 12n. Note that Parry considered
)1 « a particularized epithet; cf. Parry (1971, 153–65, esp. 156–57).
64 This formula occurs modified at Od. 4.112, 144 T()/*« #, χ / T()/) , μ 3)
λ F ) .
65 See Shelmerdine (1984). On her suggestion that the Old Man of Onchestos resembles
Laertes, see 184–212n.
66 So also Sick (1996, 70–102).
le at 237–39 which seems to be based on Od. 5.488–91; but this belongs

to an entirely different context, hence it cannot constitute an allusion to
the Cattle of the Sun. Further, D. H. Sick emphasizes the significance of
the animals’ number (fifty in h.Herm., multiples of fifty in the Odys-
sey),67 their immortality (cf. 71), and the improper performance of the
sacrifice in both texts.68 The Odyssean story about the Cattle of the Sun
must have been known to the audience, who might have expected to
hear a version of it here. But the story of Apollo’s stolen cattle in
h.Herm. is not the same as the Cattle of the Sun: (i) the perpetrator in
the Odyssey is not the hero himself (who unlike Hermes is never said to
be tormented by hunger in Od. 12) but his companions. (ii) Helios’ cows
are said to be alive (they low and move) even after they have been
slaughtered, a remarkable detail to which one would expect a reference
if the Cattle of the Sun were alluded to. Finally, (iii) line 381 shows that
for the Hymn poet Helios and Apollo are kept distinct from each other.
4.3.2 The Homeric Hymn to Hermes and Hesiod69

The words which the Hymn shares with Hesiod cannot in and of them-
selves prove Hesiodic influence since they may be traditional or reflect an
accident in the transmission of epic poetry. Similarly, h.Herm. 36 (F
") ρ λ ")" μ μ 1 (φ) need not be a quotation of
Op. 365. Although the idea of a quotation is attractive, as I explain on
p. 16 and 23–24, the phrase in question has a proverbial ring, and both
poets may be drawing on a common source of proverbial wisdom. The
same applies to h.Herm. 120 3 ) # 3 R& (cf. Op. 382 3 #
67 Fernández-Delgado (1990, 205 n. 18) suggests that Hermes steals fifty of Apollo’s cows be-
cause these are half the number of cows that would be offered in a hecatomb to Apollo,
whose rights Hermes contests.
68 On the cattle’s presumed immortality, see 71n. (Ν" ). Sick also suggests that the
cattle’s owner in the Hymn may not be Apollo, arguing on the basis of the plural K «
at h.Herm. 275 and 309 (but see 275n.), the reference to Helios at 381, and the cattle’s
alleged familiarity with the region around the Alpheios to which they go $
«.
69 The subject is treated in Teske (1936, 64–66), who limits himself to citing verbal echoes,
some of which are of dubious value (e.g. 31 φκ *!!, 106 $ *« Κ!«, 110
μ« $7, 236 /* λ "!). On h.Herm. 36 Teske cites AS who detect a
“palpable parody.” This is plausible, given that in h.Herm. this verse points to Hermes’ fi-
nancial gain (fifty cows) once the lyre is given to Apollo, while in the Op. it belongs to a set
of maxims regarding fincancial matters.
68 Introduction
3 ) &!): this phrase too may be traditional, hence it may not
imply direct borrowing. The Hymn poet uses this phrase in a different
sense: he presents Hermes literally ‘piling one deed on the other,’ i.e. one
piece of meat on the other (cf. 127 3 , and above, p. 53).
Paul Friedländer has noted some similarities between the proem of
Hesiod’s Theogony and h.Herm.70 These have primarily to do with di-
vine birth stories, hence both poets may be using traditional material.
Thus:
h.Herm. 3–4 (χ M | 1φ( )* « :μ« φ)*(
!) ~ Hes. Th. 53–54 (« P 9 ( K 9( λ ! |
M(!1();
h.Herm. 6–9 (3 K | 1φ9 ( ) ) !!
μ« $)) | … | )7 $« 1«) ~ Hes. Th. 56–57
( ¹ 1 « ! ( ZL« | *!φ $# $);
h.Herm. 10–16 ($))# Ρ κ ) :μ« *« <) | 9
#
-( « λ« C ) !7 | λ *# )-
1 ) ~ Hes. Th. 58–61 ($))# Ρ 7 W# μ« 3(, λ # 3 -
o | ( φ* … | p # 3 # 1 «
²*φ « …).
Affinity with the Theogony may be detected in Hermes’ second song
and its effect on Apollo.71 The poet, furthermore, shares the formula
1« E
« with Th. 938 (a brief notice about Hermes’ birth); this
may point to an established narrative from which both Hesiod and the
poet of h.Herm. drew. More important, however, are the reminiscences
of the Prometheus and Typhoeus episodes. At 76 we meet the phrase
)(« # C )7 /(«, which occurs also at Hes. Th. 547 (of
Prometheus ‘remembering’ his cunning craft), while at h.Herm. 243 our
poet uses # C# (!, which also appears at Th. 551 with a
minor difference (of Zeus perceiving Prometheus’ tricks). The poet bor-
rows these lines from Hesiod’s Prometheus episode to punctuate diffe-
rent stages of the cattle theft episode: the reference to Th. 547 occurs
when the divine child steals Apollo’s cows and decides to lead them
backwards; the reference to Th. 551 appears when Apollo bursts into
Maia’s cave after he has discovered that his cattle have been stolen.
A more powerful god (Zeus, Apollo) is able to see through the trick-
70 See Friedländer (1966, 283–86).

71 This is discussed in detail on p. 12–13.
ster’s deceptive actions (Prometheus, Hermes), and both cases involve a

visual deception (Theogony: bones wrapped in fat; h.Herm.: Hermes
wrapped in his swaddling clothes and pretending to be an ordinary in-
fant; the backwards walking cows and Hermes’ footprints). Both cha-
racters are associated with fire: Prometheus steals it from Zeus, while
Hermes invents the fire-sticks.72 And both are involved in some ritual
action: Prometheus’ story provides the aition for the institution of the
Olympian sacrifice; Hermes performs a travesty of the sacrificial ritual.
However, an important difference between the two stories lies in the
fact that while Zeus in the Theogony pretends to be deceived by Prome-
theus’ tricks, Apollo in h.Herm. is truly deceived by his younger brother
whom he has to interrogate in order to find his cattle’s whereabouts.
A further reference to the Theogony, both in terms of diction and
content, can be found at h.Herm. 278–79 (cf. n. ad loc.). It seems clear
that the poet has the Typhoeus episode in mind. In addition to the ver-
bal similarities pointed out in the commentary, the overall context sup-
ports the allusion: we are dealing in both cases with a divine figure born
last (it will be remembered that Typhoeus is the last offspring of Gaia,
and Hermes is the lastborn Olympian), who threatens the current es-
tablishment: Typhoeus aims at deposing Zeus, while Hermes challenges
Apollo’s position in the Olympian cosmos.
The Hermes poet then is certainly aware of Hesiod’s Theogony and
chooses to allude to two episodes that resonate well with his story. The
division of the meat at the Alpheios is an important event in the Hymn,
preceded by a trickster-like adventure (the abduction of the cattle); an
allusion to Prometheus, the divine arch-trickster and Hermes’ uncle
seems thus in order. The division of meat itself evokes Prometheus: the
poem’s emphasis on the equality of the portions and the addition of a
) « to all of them brings to mind the unequal portions
Prometheus prepared for Zeus. While Prometheus institutes the sacri-
fice, Hermes introduces to our world the λ« !(.
On the other hand, the allusion to the Typhoeus episode of the
Theogony provides the poet with the opportunity to give a cosmic di-
mension to the conflict of Hermes and Apollo. This is one of the poet’s
many comic twists: the infant Hermes poses a threat to Apollo, a threat
72 According to D.S. 5.67.2 the fire-sticks were invented by Prometheus.

70 Introduction
presented in terms reminiscent of the succession myth and implicitly

compared to the last major foe Zeus had to face (cf. p. 33). The poten-
tial usurper, however, is an infant lacking Typhoeus’ bie. But Apollo is
not as successful a protector of the divine status quo as Zeus had been in
the Theogony: at 219 he appears to be at a loss and he needs information
from a mortal and his infant brother. This allusion becomes all the
more pointed when we recall that Apollo’s successful struggle against
the monster at Pytho in h.Apol. is compared to Zeus’s battle against Ty-
phoeus (cf. h.Apol. 349–55).
4.3.3 The Homeric Hymn to Hermes and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo
A link between h.Herm. and h.Apol. was proposed by Ludwig Rader-
macher who noted two parallels: h.Herm. 176–81 ~ h.Apol. 536–37 and
h.Herm. 518 ~ h.Apol. 79.73 The first of these refers to the wealth of the
Delphic oracle, which was proverbial already in Homer (cf. p. 135–36).
The two poems, furthermore, mention Delphi’s wealth in completely
different terms: in h.Apol. we hear of the many sacrificial victims,
whereas h.Herm. refers to cauldrons, tripods, and other goods stored in
the temple. The second parallel is equally problematic: at h.Herm. 518
Apollo asks his younger brother to swear an oath that he will not
deprive him of his possessions at Delphi; at h.Apol. 79 it is Delos who
requests an oath from Leto that Apollo, soon to be born, will establish
a temple there first. The verses in question may be simply formulaic
(cf. Od. 10.343) and hence of little value as evidence for the direct in-
fluence of h.Apol. on h.Herm.
The possibility that h.Herm. may acknowledge h.Apol. was repeated
by S. Abramowicz in her 1937 dissertation, who remarked on p. 72: “on
contracte l’impression involontaire d’un ton quasi parodiant et pole-
mique envers l’hymne délien (et la figure d’Apollon homérique en géné-
ral).” Franz Dornseiff presented more parallels between the two texts.74
He explained the mention of Onchestos in h.Herm. as an allusion to
h.Apol. 229–38. Although his parallel is not entirely persuasive,75 On-
73 Radermacher 110–11 speaks of a deliberate echo of h.Apol. at h.Herm. 176 and 229.
74 Dornseiff (1938).
75 Dornseiff’s idea appears to be that in both references Onchestos is a place where some-
thing is lost: in h.Apol. the traveler loses his horse team, while in h.Herm. Apollo loses
chestos is indeed a locality on which both Hymns dwell at some length

(h.Herm. even mentions it twice). In both poems this town is visited by
the gods during their journeys: in h.Apol. Onchestos is one of Apollo’s
stops as he travels from Pieria searching for a place to establish his or-
acle. Several places are mentioned before the god arrives at Onchestos,
which is already sacred to Poseidon (229–38). In h.Herm. both Hermes
and Apollo pass from Onchestos: Hermes when driving Apollo’s cattle
from Pieria to Pylos and Apollo when searching for his stolen cattle. The
precedent of h.Apol. may have influenced the poet of h.Herm. in his
choice of Onchestos as the setting for the meeting with the Old Man, but
its mention may also function as an acknowledgment of Hermes’ cult in
Boeotia where according to one tradition he was born.76
The very fact that Apollo has such a prominent role in h.Herm. in-
vites a comparison between the two poems.77 The two Hymns certainly
contain common elements. Both are birth-hymns, and the gods’ ex-
ploits are a manifestation of the ‘precocious divine child’ motif. How-
ever, the poet of h.Herm. gives a comic twist to this motif. Whereas
Apollo becomes full grown immediately after he partakes of nectar and
ambrosia – we are told that his golden swaddles could not contain
him any longer (128–129) – Hermes remains an infant in the poem.78
Throughout most of the Hymn we are reminded of Hermes’ status as an
infant through constant references to his swaddling-clothes.79 But un-
like Apollo, Hermes does not partake of nectar and ambrosia although
some of his cattle. It is unclear why Dornseiff (1938, 82) claims that Onchestos is “der Ort,
wo Apollon im Hermeshymnus V. 186 etwas von seinem Tierbesitz einbüsst.” Apollo has
already lost fifty of his cows at Pieria.
76 See Schachter (1981, II 46) and below, 2n.
77 The possibility of a parallel between Hermes and Apollo’s birth in their respective Homeric
Hymns is acknowledged by Penglase (1994, 184). That the poet of h.Herm. might have had
h.Apol. in mind has been argued most recently by Richardson (2007) and (2010, 20–21).
Clay Politics 96, while acknowledging some similarity between the two poems (the new
god’s birth initially seems to be a threat to the divine establishment, but he later acquires
his proper place and prerogatives in the pantheon) also points out that Apollo’s birth oc-
curs early in Zeus’s regime, while Hermes is presented in his Hymn as the last born of the
Olympians.
78 Pace Majorel (2003, 60–61) Hermes undergoes no physical transformation in the course of
the Hymn.
79 Note however that there is no mention of the swaddling clothes after 388. This absence of
references to the ! may underscore Hermes’ admission into the community of
the (adult) Olympians by downplaying his infantile status; see also p. 37–39.
72 Introduction
these are stored in his mother’s cave (cf. 248), but has a craving for meat.
Furthermore, both gods undertake a journey in their respective Hymns
in which they visit Pieria and Onchestos. And h.Herm. addresses topics
that are already present in h.Apol. (the establishment of Apollo as an
oracular deity and his acquisition of the lyre), but from a different per-
spective.
Perhaps the most pronounced thematic point of contact between
the two Hymns is the way h.Herm. reacts to Apollo’s Lebensprogramm
announced in h.Apol. 131–32 (F( « φ)( λ 1)
*<, | / 7! # $ @! :μ« ( ")7, ‘may the cithara
and the curved bow be dear to me, and I will reveal to mankind Zeus’s
unerring will’). One might object that the fact that both gods declare
their intentions soon after they are born may be merely a generic pa-
rallel. However, the poet of h.Herm. treats all three points of Apollo’s
Lebensprogramm in his narrative: the lyre and divination are mentioned
extensively, while the bow is briefly mentioned at 515 in what is proba-
bly an allusion to another version of the story where Hermes stole
Apollo’s bow and/or arrows.
In h.Herm. Apollo does not claim the lyre immediately after his
birth. Although a god associated with the Muses, he only knows the
music of the aulos (452). It is only when Hermes creates the lyre and
performs a theogonic song for Apollo that the latter obtains through
exchange the instrument with which he is commonly associated. Thus,
instead of presenting the lyre as a permanent attribute of Apollo, the
poet of h.Herm. relates a story in which the lyre prominently showcases
Hermes’ ingenuity and becomes the instrument of the deeds of ex-
change over which Hermes presides.
Apollo’s mantic abilities are not denied anywhere in h.Herm. How-
ever, a different version of how the god of prophecy obtained the privi-
lege of pronouncing Zeus’s unerring will is offered. In h.Apol. there
is no question that the newly born Apollo will function as Zeus’s
mouthpiece; the only issue that needs to be settled is where his oracle
will be established. But according to h.Herm. Apollo did not always re-
veal Zeus’s will; instead he practiced a different form of divination in
his youth, that of the ‘Bee-maidens’, which he is prepared to grant
Hermes.
Finally the two poems share some vocabulary describing the gods’
miraculous deeds. At h.Herm. 17 we are told that Hermes !) -
&; both parts of this hemistich occur in archaic hexameter

only at h.Apol.: !)
- appears at 441, when Apollo appears to the
Cretan sailors as a star at mid-day, while & recurs at 201
(both in the same sedes). The combination of « and 1)
*< is also limited to these two Hymns (h.Herm. 515 and h.Apol. 131,
both of which are followed by a reference to Zeus). The phrase ))
ξ
) 1() occurs only in h.Apol. 304 and h.Herm. 232.
Nicholas Richardson adds the rare adjective )/(« that describes
Onchestos at h.Herm. 88 and appears as an attribute of Teumessos
at h.Apol. 224, just before the section on Onchestos.80 For the verbal
correspondences between h.Herm. 550–65 (the description of the bee-
oracle) and h.Apol. 257–74 (Telphousa’s advice to Apollo not to found
an oracle near her spring), see above, p. 55–56. Taken together, all these
similarities suggest that the poet of h.Herm. is wittily and irreverently
playing against h.Apol.
Appendix: Oral or literate composition?
At lines 54–55 Hermes performs for the first time on the newly invented
lyre. His beautiful song is said to be delivered < C!/(«, i.e. it is
the product of improvisation. < C!/(« is located in an emphatic
position, at the beginning of its line. Deriving from C*« and !/«
(= ‘near’ or ‘casual, off-hand’), it is employed in Homer to designate
hand-to-hand combat or battle at close quarters (cf. 55n.). In h.Herm. it
is used in a different way, though not incompatible with its etymology:
Hermes’ is an off-hand performance, delivered on the spur of the mo-
ment, without any preparation, in a way mirroring the god’s improvised
creativity (cf. 86n. on C 7!«).
But why should the poet tell us specifically that Hermes’ hymn was
performed < C!/(«? Is it perhaps because during the poet’s
times there was some way of performing hymnic poetry other than
through improvisation? And should we attach any significance to the
fact that Hermes’ second performance, his theogony, whose organiza-
80 See Richardson (2010, 20–21). )/(« occurs elsewhere at Il. 2.697 and 4.383.
74 Introduction
tion and order is emphasized by the poet more than once, is not ex-
plicitly introduced as an extempore performance, even though much of
the same formulaic material is used in that scene as in the first perfor-
mance of Hermes? And should we view this as a mini-history of hexa-
meter poetry performance? If so, the term < C!/(« could indi-
cate an older type of composition and/or performance which was not
practiced as much at the poet’s age any more, but must have been prac-
ticed by the first performers of poetry (hence also Hermes). Alter-
natively, do these two ways of composition and/or performance (and
perhaps others too) co-exist?
We may wish to speculate that there were indeed ways of perform-
ing poetry to the lyre other than < C!/(« and that perhaps the
praise of Hermes’ second performance (on which see p. 7) is meant to
indicate the poet’s appreciation for performances that are more “sophi-
sticated,” i.e. not < C!/(«. But what exactly was this other form
of composition and performance? It has been suggested that there
might have been some influence of written texts on h.Herm.’s composi-
tion.81 The presence in the Hymn of words unattested in Homer or He-
siod and of words and phrases used differently than in Homer and He-
siod might lead one to suppose that h.Herm. was composed by a literate
poet who was no longer content to reproduce the traditional language
but took pride in his innovations. On the other hand, what may appear
as an innovation of our poet (indeed even the term < C!/(«
itself!) could really be an underrepresented usage. Furthermore, the
oral poetic medium (qua language) does not remain unchanging over
time. And the poem’s humorous treatment of the gods must contribute
to some extent to its unusual diction and style.82
In view of these considerations, I do not think that we can sum-
marily decide between “oral” and “literate” composition. Indeed,
“oral” and “written” literature are not separated by a gulf or abyss;
81 Janko (1982, 40–41). Bergren (1982), in an often confusing analysis, speaks of Hermes’
writing as opposed to Apollo’s speech. West (1966a, 40–41, 48–49) and Pucci (1977,
138–42) have argued that Hesiod composed his works with the aid of writing.
82 Janko (1982, 137–38) attributes the peculiarities of the Hymn’s vocabulary to its humorous
tone rather than to its lateness; consequently, the vocabulary itself is not disproof of the
poem’s orality. In Janko’s view, the metrical data argue for literary interference. See also
p. 41 with n. 6.
rather, there is a wide grey area in between.83 In addition, even if one

were to opt for “oral” composition, the question would still remain, as
anthropological research has shown that there are several types of oral
poetry, many of which operate differently from the Yugoslav model de-
scribed by Parry and Lord.84 On the other hand, the improvisational
mode of composition that the poet registers when Hermes is presented
as singing < C!/(« is reminiscent of the kind of pseudo-sponta-
neity we encounter in Pindar.85 The need to stress the spontaneity of
composition arises, of course, at the moment when such spontaneity is
not the rule any longer, and this seems to be the case in such a highly
self-reflexive poem as h.Herm.
Where does all this lead us? We can say with certainty that the poet
himself raises the question of composition and performance, and we
can register both his debt to the traditional formulaic language we meet
in Homer and Hesiod, as well as his departures from this diction
(see section 4.1 and the apparatus of formulaic parallels). Perhaps it
would be safer to consider h.Herm. an “oral-derived” (Foley) or “post-
oral” (Friedrich) poem that belongs to the aforementioned grey area
between oral and literate composition,86 and that was perhaps
composed with the aid of memorized verse (possibly worked out in
writing beforehand) but performed orally in the manner of “tradi-
tional” epic.87
83 See Finnegan (1977), Bakker (1997, esp. 7–32, 159–62), Bakker (2005, 38–55). Further,
Hainsworth (1981, 8–10) and West (1981, 53–67).
84 See Finnegan (1977, 69–87) for the variety of forms oral composition can take and
p. 160–69 for the involvement of writing in the transmission and distribution of “oral lit-
erature.”
85 See Morrison (2007, 67–72) for examples of Pindar’s strategy of creating the impression of
extempore composition. Note that Hesiod, too, employs a similar device at Th. 35 $))
( λ ν λ (; (‘But what do these things about oak or rock have
to do with me?’). On the issue of spontaneity in Homeric poetry, see Scodel (1996, 65–67).
86 For the term post-oral, see Friedrich (2000, 16–17) and (2007, 140–46). Cf. also Fernán-
dez-Delgado (1990, esp. 224–25).
87 On this issue, see Herington (1985, 41–50) and the evidence assembled in appendix VI
(p. 201–206); further Calame (1995, 28–31).
76 Introduction
5. Relation to Other Literature
This section is divided into two parts. Part one examines texts in which
elements of the god’s story narrated in h.Herm. are found. In some
cases it is possible to posit direct dependence on the Homeric Hymn to
Hermes; but sometimes we will have to assume that h.Herm. was not the
only source. The first part concludes with an attempt to show the poss-
ible relations between the various versions of Hermes’ story by means
of a stemma. The second part presents some verbal echoes of the Hymn
in later literature, which contribute to our knowledge of the poem’s
Nachleben.
5.1 References to the Story of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes in

Other Authors1
5.1.1 It is known that Alcaeus had composed a Hymn to Hermes (= 308b

+ S 264 SLG). Of this poem only the first stanza survives:
/ , K))« S «, !
« Κ(, μ 1φ! †C«†
M K ) !
"!)(=
Hail, lord of Cyllene, for my heart wishes
to praise you, whom Maia bore on splendid(?) mountain peaks,
having mingled with the son of Cronus,
the king of all.
Here we meet several elements one expects at a hymnal opening: the

salutation to the god (/ ; cf. 30n.), his birth-place or major cult-
place, a reference to the poet’s task (Κ(), and the god’s parentage.
1 Overviews of (some) of the story’s versions can be found in Koettgen (1914), Holland
(1926), Terzaghi (1913, 22–69), Abramowicz (1937, 73–79), Radermacher 182–87, AHS
270–72, Hägg (1989, 36–44, 49–53).
Relation to other Literature 77
This poem influenced Horace, Carm. 1.10,2 which in turn is the basis
for Ovid, Fasti 5.663–92.3
According to Paus. 7.20.4 Alcaeus sang how Hermes stole Apollo’s
cattle and how, after Apollo threatened him, he stole his quiver as well;
this last element is hinted at in h.Herm. 515. In all likelihood these
events took place on the first day of Hermes’ life, as in h.Herm.4 P.Oxy.
XXXV 2734 fr. 1 (SLG S 264; 75.2 M–P3), which offers a diegesis of Al-
caeus’ Hymn, confirms this.5 As far as we can tell, Alcaeus did not nar-
rate Hermes’ invention of the lyre.
Finally, Morrison (2007, 82) compares the opening of Alcaeus’
Hymn to Hermes to the opening of h.Herm., particularly emphasizing
Alcaeus’ use of «, which in his view is “a declaration of personal
desire to sing” that runs contrary to the Homeric practice of asking the
Muse to sing of the god. He detects a similar reversal of the Homeric
convention in Alcaeus’ beginning with / , regularly found at the end
of the so-called Homeric Hymns. As Morrison notes, “this is not proof
of the priority of the Homeric Hymn” (cf. the discussion on the poem’s
date in section 7), and it seems likely that Alcaeus is inverting the con-
vention of the rhapsodic (hexameter) in general, rather than h.Herm.
At any rate, it is worth comparing Hermes’ hymn to himself in lines
54–62, which contrary to his theogony is not said to begin from the
Muses (cf. 429–30) but seems to be the result of Hermes’ own wish to
sing. We are thus justified in seeing a similar play with hymnic conven-
tions in h.Herm. as well.
2 Cf. Porphyrio’s comment: hymnus in Mercurium ab Alcaeo lyrico poeta, and Nisbet and
Hubbard (1970) on this Ode. Cairns (1983a, 33–35) evaluates the extent of Alcaeus’ in-
fluence on Horace’s ode.
3 See Miller (1991, 99–105). When the merchant at Ov. F. 5.683–84 addresses his patron
deity, Mercury, with these words falsove citavi | non audituri numina magna Iovis, we cannot
but think of Hermes’ own oath at 274.
4 In Ant.Lib. 23 and LIMC, s.v. Hermes 246–48 represent Hermes leading off the cattle as
an adult (fig. 4–5).
5 See Cairns (1983a, 30–31); and cf. Men.Rh. p. 340.15–21 (Spengel). The first book of
Alcaeus’ poems began with a Hymn to Apollo, followed by the Hymn to Hermes; see Lyne
(2005).
78 Introduction
5.1.2 Hellanicus, Atlantis (fr. 19b.1–8 Fowler = P.Oxy. VIII 1084, ed.
Hunt; 459 M–P3):
!
=α []
–
ξ E [
«]
φ)7(«, Ρ C-
9

φ)(![«]
! [»α] 5
–
λ [ -]

[ <] $7 [«]
λ $«.
1 [M)
ξ ZL« ! )] e.g. Wilamowitz apud Hunt
(Zeus secretely mingles with Maia) in a cave; of them Hermes philetes is born (named so)
because Zeus was sleeping with her in love; and Hermes becomes the herald of the gods,
unaging and immortal.
Hellanicus agrees with h.Herm. on the god’s parentage and place of

conception (a cave). Just as in the Hymn, Zeus and Maia’s meetings
occur in secrecy. Hermes is first introduced as φ)7(« ‘thief,’ a term
that occurs in h.Herm. (67, 159, 175, 214, 292, 446), and this trait of his
is linked to the circumstances of his conception as Hellanicus etymo-
logizes it from φ).6 Hellanicus’ notice is a condensed account that
may derive from a genealogical source close to the Hymn (perhaps from
the Hymn itself); cf. ) ~ h.Herm. 9 )7; ! » ~
h.Herm. 7 !! , and the epic form !
= (though not used in the
Hymn).7
6 Cf. Suda φ 334 φ)(: 8 ) λ ¹ ). λ ¹ φ)«, though at φ 336
a distinction is drawn: φ)(7«: ² !7«. φ)7(« ξ ² )(«. See also 67n. For the
etymology of a proper name as reflecting the circumstances of the character’s conception,
cf. [Hes.] fr. 235.2–3 ¹ # S*(# R# 3 (sc. #I)1«), 8 1φ( |
K *« b) /( 9
φ)*(.
7 O. Thomas (2007) proposes that Hellanicus’ account derives from Hesiod’s Catalogue
(fr. 169). This is certainly possible, but Hellanicus may be using more than one source here;
see Vergados (2010). Note also that Bernabé and Davies include [Hes.] fr. 169 (M.-W.) in
the Titanomachia.
5.1.3 Sophocles, Ichneutae (= fr. 314):8

This satyr-play offers the first extensive treatment of the story after
h.Herm. and despite its fragmentary state it allows us to conclude that
Sophocles had followed the Homeric Hymn closely.
The play begins in medias res, when Apollo discovers that his cattle
have been stolen. He makes a proclamation in which he promises a
great reward to anyone who will help him retrieve the lost animals. De-
tails concerning Hermes’ birth, the fabrication of the lyre, and the god’s
stratagem in abducting the cows are presented as the plot unfolds.
However, we do not know how the dispute was resolved as the play’s
end is not preserved.
Apollo’s words in 1–42 are reminiscent of his despair at h.Herm.
190–200 and 219–26. He has been following the cows’ tracks (14 /-
! , 21 (), and just as in the Hymn, he is baffled at the
cows’ disappearance (18 )λ« R ) ). It is possible, though by no
means certain, that Hermes had stolen only female animals, as in
h.Herm.; cf. 11 "] « $)« and 12 . Apollo’s words at
33–36, although extremely fragmentary, suggest that he had journeyed
through some of the same areas as in h.Herm.; cf. 31 (B« [
«).
This does not necessarily mean that the Ichneutae mentioned an en-
counter at Onchestos, as the Hymn does, and it probably did not: the in-
fomer of h.Herm. (i.e. the Old Man of Onchestos) has been replaced by
the Satyrs, a change required by the genre of the Ichneutae. These Sa-
tyrs, moreover, are promised a reward, a theme absent from h.Herm.
(but known from the Battus-story; see below, p. 101–103).
A difference may be detected in the cave in which Hermes had con-
cealed Apollo’s cows: in the Hymn it was located in Triphylian Pylos,
while in the Ichneutae Hermes is said to have hidden the animals in
Maia’s cave at Cyllene. This difference should also be attributed to the
genre of the Ichneutae, and specifically to the principle of the ‘unity of
space’: if the cows had been hidden elsewhere, part of the action would
have to be reported. Besides, Sophocles may have been influenced by
8 The text is quoted from Diggle’s TGrFS. Various dates have been proposed for the Ichneu-
tae, ranging from 468 to 430–20 BC; see the review of earlier opinions in Maltese (1982,
12–17). Sutton (1980, 47–48) considers it an early play because it requires only two actors
and few, if any, verses are split between two speakers; Sutton further detects similarities
with Sophocles’ Ajax (cf. Steffen 1950, 64), but this play too is not securely dated.
80 Introduction
other versions of the story, in which Hermes indeed hid the stolen cattle
in Maia’s cave: on a 5th c. vase (LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 241; 480–70 BC;
fig. 2a–d), the infant Hermes appears to have gathered the cattle in
Maia’s cave; the other side of the vase depicts Apollo who, having
tracked down his stolen animals, has entered the cave.
Sophocles’ treatment of the stratagem by which Hermes confuses his
trackers shows that he must have had first-hand knowledge of h.Herm. In
the Hymn the divine child drives the cattle backwards all the way from
Pieria to Pylos (cf. 76–78, 210–11, 219–21). Sophocles has Hermes drive
the cattle backwards only for part of his journey. The god must have led
the cows facing forward until he reached the vicinity of Maia’s cave. It is
only at 118–23 that the Satyrs realize a different kind of footprints:
3 )α
)! φ

λ
« Κ) α C # F!.
! ; « ² *« [«;]
« C! *! -)) , # σ
# $))7)! ![)]α
μ« (!μ« ρ/[ μ "(])(.
Ha!
These footprints are reversed indeed, by Zeus,
and face in the opposite direction; but look at these.
What’s this here? What sort of arrangement is this?
The front ones have been reversed to face backwards,
but these again, intertwined, face opposite to each other.
A terrible stir-up possessed the cattle-driver.
Besides the change in the direction of the footprints at this point that
baffles the Satyrs, these verses also suggest that in order to confuse his
trackers utterly Hermes made only some of the cows walk backwards.
)! φ
(119) refers to those cows that were marching back-
wards. () (120) however points to a different set of tracks that were
caused by animals, some of which were moving forward and some back-
ward. Thus their tracks appeared interlaced with each other (121–22
# σ | # $))7)! !)), which perplexed the Satyrs
even more. This reflects a more complicated stratagem than that de-
scribed in the Hymn.9 At any rate, 121 « C! *! -)) -
9 Steffen (1960, 72) proposes that Hermes drove the cows forward, but when he drew near to
his cave, he made each of them walk backwards. The Satyrs must have now come to the
place where Hermes turned the cows, hence their confusion. Cf. Maltese (1982, 77).
clearly echoes h.Herm. 77–78 $ 7!« ²)«, « *!

R!, | « # R *!, while 122 # $))7)! may re-
flect h.Herm. 77 $.
Soon after they discover the cows’ tracks, the Satyrs hear the sound
of Hermes’ lyre.10 The sound is novel and terrifying, and the cowardly Sa-
tyrs who are ready to give up their chase are chastised by the Silenus, who
himself soon gives in to fear. We hear thrice in h.Herm. that the lyre ‘re-
sounded awesomely’ (! ) "(!) as soon as its strings are
plucked (54, 420, 502). Although this phrase normally suggests sounds
that inspire awe and fear (cf. 54n.), it becomes clear from 420 ()!!
ξ d"« #A*))) that nothing of the sort is implied here. It is tempt-
ing, however, to think that Sophocles exploited the normal meaning of
the formula in Homer and therefore presented his Satyrs frightened,
which adds to the scene’s comedy: the new sound produced by the lyre is
indeed frightening for the cowardly Satyrs who are dumbstruck.
The Satyrs’ confrontation with the nymph Cyllene is also reminis-
cent of certain themes that will have been familiar from the Hymn.11 At
265–70 Cyllene gives an account of Zeus and Maia’s amorous relation-
ship that is in keeping with the beginning of h.Herm.:
λ [] Κ [][]
Q «,
6H Ρ« [κ 1]![]« b<[] *.
Z[L]« [ ] [φ« « !]( #A[])«
…
[³« R] )79(
« "&@ »«. (cf. h.Herm. 5–9)
270 ³« R Vollgraff
For the deed has been kept secret in the gods’ abodes,
so that no news might reach Hera about this story.
For Zeus secretely into the Atlantid’s home …
(so that he may escape the watching eye) of the deep-girded goddess.
Furthermore, as at the beginning of the Hymn, Hermes rests on a win-

nowing fan and is of course wrapped in his swaddling-clothes:
10 Inventions seem to be typically found in satyr-plays; cf. Seaford (1984, 36–37) and Lissa-
rague (1990, 235–36).
11 A different version of the story may be represented in LIMC, s.v. Hermes 241 (fig. 3),
a vase which represents a female figure (probably Maia) accompanied by a male character
(Zeus) and arguing with another male figure (Apollo) over the infant Hermes who is
wrapped in his swaddling-clothes. The other side of the vase depicts the stolen cattle in a
different cave. See Bonaudo (2004, 58–66) and Nobili (2011, 155–59).
82 Introduction
λ
λ 7
[ μ« !] « ! ) φκ
[<]& 1 λ # π (274–76)
(Cyllene) … I stay (here) and in addition to the
swaddling-clothes I take care of his drinking (milk)
and his sleeping, his livelihood while in the crib,
at night and throughout the day.
Contrary to h.Herm., however, the divine child grows rapidly (as

Apollo does in the Homeric Hymn devoted to him), so much so that it
causes fear and surprise even to the Nymph Cyllene:
[.... ]Κ< # _ C *
[..... ]!«, —! λ φ*"« # 3/.
[Κ ] Q _ φ![]«
[.....]« μ« D"(« « $ 7
g $< h& C !/)&
g")!(hα * (! μ« !. (277–82)
... he grows each day at an unusual rate
.... so that I am amazed and afraid.
for he has not yet lived for six days
... of the boy(?) presses hard to the prime of youth
and (he) sprouts forth and his growth does not
slow down; such is the child that the treasure house contains.
Sophocles innovates here in two ways. The action in the Ichneutae

takes up more (dramatic) time than in h.Herm., i.e. at least six days.
More importantly, Hermes is said to have already reached adoles-
cence. In h.Herm. however Hermes accomplishes all his deeds on the
first day of his life while still wearing his swaddling-clothes. His
infancy also supplies the argument in his defence against Apollo’s ac-
cusations. But Sophocles composed the Ichneutae for dramatic per-
formance, while h.Herm. was meant to be recited. Consequently, the
dramatic poet could not represent Hermes on stage as an infant when
the time for the confrontation and reconciliation scenes came. Sop-
hocles had to depart from the Hymn in this respect and make use of a
traditional folktale motif, viz. the prodigious corporeal growth of the
hero.12
Soon after Cyllene’s description of Hermes’ miraculous growth, the
Satyrs hear the sound of the lyre again and marvel at it. An exchange
12 However, ancient Greek theatre may have used boy actors; see Sifakis (1979).
ensues between them and Cyllene in which the nymph explains the con-
struction of the instrument that baffled the Satyrs. Her words are rid-
dling and sometimes reminiscent of h.Herm. Cf. 299–300:
(X.) λ « *« φ " ;
(K)).) α Ω 3!/ φ7, & # Ν« _ ² 7 .
and 328:
8« ² « * ( λ φ# (/7![].
(Cho.) And how should I believe that it is the voice of the dead one that produces such a
roar?
(Cyll.) Believe it; for after its death it obtained a voice, whereas while alive the beast was
voiceless.
… thus did the boy devise a voice for the dead beast.
These verses may be compared to h.Herm. 38 ν ξ 9 («, *

) )μ $« (see n. ad loc. on this riddle). Lines 325–27 of
the Ichneutae as well recall motifs that we meet in h.Herm.:
λ )1([«] 3!# Ν ! λ 5 []7[]
)
*, /[] # $1 !φ[ )«·]
<[] Cμ *)!
« )[1]«.
and this is a remedy and consolation against sorrow
for him alone; he rejoices playing (this instrument) singing some harmonious song;
for the varied sound of the lyre excites him.
The lyre is a means to ward off sorrow but it serves this function
only for Hermes, whereas the Hymn is interested in the effect of
lyre-playing on the performer’s audience; cf. h.Herm. 447 « !
$(/ )@ (with n.) and 484 φ(
*) / . Finally, $1 reminds us of Ν used of the lyre
at 52.
It is difficult to establish with absolute certainty in what order the
cattle theft and the fabrication of the lyre occurred in Sophocles. The
Satyrs accuse Hermes of having used the hides from Apollo’s cows in
the construction of the instrument:
! φ )& 1«, ² )«
"< 8 ! # $*5( α C
!«,
<Ρ>« /
# i« !«
W *))( Ν)) 3- 375
5 " « [ν] $μ [<.
[]7 »[!# ]< ² ""&. (371–77)
84 Introduction
twist and turn these things with your words, find

any clever word that you wish; for there is no
way you will convince me in this,
that this one, who has contrived this object made of glued hides,
has withered the hides of some other cows rather than Loxias’.
Don’t try to make me go out of this way.
The Satyrs’ reply attributes to Cyllene the kind of false and deceptive
rhetoric one would expect from Hermes, and Sophocles may have in-
tended to foreshadow Hermes’ crafty arguments with these words. Cyl-
lene may have claimed that Hermes had used hides from cows other
than Apollo’s, which prompted the Satyrs’ reply at 374–76.13 This in
turn would imply that the fabrication of the lyre occurred before the
cattle theft.14 However, the Satyrs’ statement could be simply a mis-
taken inference of theirs. There is also an interesting “error” in Cyl-
lene’s argument preceding these words: in defending Hermes she claims
that he cannot have been the thief since such behaviour is not innate
either to his father or his relatives on his mother’s side (360–61). The
latter is wrong if one considers that Prometheus was Maia’s uncle; cf.
Hes. Th. 509–10.
Apollo reappears at lines 451ff., which are extremely fragmentary.
Hence not much can be said about their content. The occurrence of
!. (456) and ) (457) suggests that Apollo may have given
the Satyrs the promised reward and dismissed them from their service.
We can assume however that a confrontation between the two divine
brothers occurred. On the basis of fr. 930 (Radt)
) # Ρ « φ« φ 9
!» $ (, r )μ φ 9
!*
It is necessary that one be quiet whenever he is manifestly discovered to steal, even if he
possesses eloquence.
and fr. 933 (Radt) Ρ « Cλ« $ λ φ)(9

" 1«
For no oath is difficult for a thievish man
we can assume that during his confrontation with Apollo, Hermes at-
tempted to persuade his brother in the same way as in h.Herm., i.e. with
13 Cf. also their words at 345–47 [!φ« « )φ !] "« | [³« Κ!-
* 9
])
» 7 [][! | [± 19 ]) @ (with Lloyd-Jones’s supplements).
14 Cf. Pearson (1917, 226) who emphatically argued that the cattle theft preceded the fabri-
cation of the lyre.
his skilful use of rhetoric and false oaths.15 Finally, Hermes might have
performed a song to the lyre for Apollo.
In addition to these similarities, there are some further (possible)
verbal echoes which suggest Sophocles’ familiarity with the text of
h.Herm.:16
1. Ichn. 16 ([Κ# r] # [Κ# φ(] " ) resembles a
formulaic line common in epic;
2. Ichn. 310 !1« S! ~ h.Herm. 33 R! ;
3. Ichn. 340 φ)7( (and perhaps fr. 933) ~ h.Herm. 67, 159, 175, 214,
292, 464;
4. Ichn. 87 7[ /- ] ~ h.Herm. 264, 364;
5. Ichn. 115–16 and possibly 188 !"[]« … " ~ cf. h.Herm. 353;
6. Ichn. 83 [] F « S7 ![] ν 7 « ~ h.Herm. 372
C … « Cξ *«;
7. Ichn. 98 3 or » ~ h.Herm. 176 7!;
8. Ichn. 102 " [] 7 (cf. 118) ~ h.Herm. 344–5 9
! …
"! … $ "7;
9. Ichn. 103 *« « κ $[ ]
Ν ~ h.Herm. 343 s #
$!!! λ $ « 3 (uttered by Apollo ob-
serving Hermes and the cows’ tracks);
10. Ichn. 123 ["(])( (and S. fr. 318 "* )5) ~ h.Herm. 14 )-

";
11. Ichn. 143–44 <! 5*φ) , μ C[λ]« [@] # - !
" ~ h.Herm. 443 !( ξ 7 7φ R!!
$ 1;
12. Ichn. 250 7 ! ! $[] ~ h.Herm. 426, 442;
13. Ichn. 282 (! *« (‘treasure house’ used of the cave where
Hermes lives) ~ h.Herm. 247 $1« (cf. 246 and 252).
Sophocles, finally, shows some interest in naming. Hermes acquired
his name μ« ! (283), while he himself named his new instru-
ment a ‘lyre.’17 Such an interest is not expressed directly in the Hymn,
15 See Holland (1926, 173).

16 See Pearson (1917, 228).
17 Hermes does not call this instrument with its proper name in h.Herm. When speaking to
Apollo, he uses riddling language and describes it as a hetaira. It is the poet who uses the
various terms for the lyre. But this comment in Sophocles reminds us of other versions dis-
cussed below, in which Hermes actually names the instrument.
86 Introduction
but there are wordplays that suggest the poet’s keen interest in establish-
ing the meaning of names and cult-epithets: cf. 28 1« in the vi-
cinity of forms of S; 73 1! « following 65 ! 7;
138 after Hermes has arranged a λ« !(; 392
π1; 409–12 Hermes transforms the ! Ν
(= )1) into vegetation, possibly a reflection of his cult-title
)1«; 492 1« … 1!, perhaps hinting at the cult-
title *«; 539 / !* following 529–30 W" | / !(.
The knowledge of a term’s meaning (or the ignorance of it) is part
of Hermes argument: at 277 and 311 he claims not to know what cows
are.
Hermes’ birth inspired also the comic playwright Philiscus in his
E λ #Aφ (« , of which unfortunately not a single
fragment survives (cf. CPG VII p. 356, test. 1). Hence we cannot tell
whether and to what extent he was influenced by h.Herm.
5.1.4 Aratus, Phaenomena 268–69:

λ /)« 3!# S)(α κ # Ν # 3 λ ) )

E (« * (!, [1 ( ρ )!.
The lyre too is small; Hermes carved it when he was still lying in his cradle, and he said it
should be called ‘Lyre’.
Despite the brevity of this reference, some allusions to h.Herm. may

be identified. ) )
in 268 is certainly meant to recall the references to
Hermes’ cradle in the Hymn. Thus for Aratus, too, the invention of
the lyre is an accomplishment of Hermes’ childhood. * (! in 269
is reminiscent of h.Herm. 41–42 )φ) ) !7 | #
<* (! S ! ) @ /)@(«. There is some disagreement as to
the meaning and point of * (! in Aratus. Mair and J. Martin
understood it as referring to the holes that Hermes drilled (presum-
ably on the ) to attach the strings. Kidd ad loc., on the other
hand, considered it a reminiscence of h.Herm. 42, and disputed LSJ’s
glossing of * (! as * ! in our passage because “there is
no suggestion that Hermes’ work involves any carving.” ‘Pierced,’
however, is too elliptical to summarize Hermes’ work on the tortoise
shell. Given that the interior of the carapace has four protuberances
near the spinal area, which had to be removed before any other work
could be done on the shell, ‘carving’ yields satisfactory sense in this
context.18 ‘Carving’ may refer both to the removal of these protuber-

ances as well as the scooping out of the animal’s flesh, both by means
of a chisel. Aratus’ * (! may in turn help us interpret <* (!
at h.Herm. 42: the Hellenistic poet may have understood <* (!
as ‘removed by carving’ vel sim.
There is however an important difference between the Aratus pas-
sage and h.Herm. Aratus states that Hermes assigned the name Lyra to
his creation (which later became a constellation). Not only does h.Herm.
not hint at the lyre’s placement among the stars, but Hermes does not
even assign a name to this instrument. The explanation of the lyre’s name
is found in other versions as well (see below, p. 106–107); in h.Herm.
however the instrument’s nomenclature seems to be freer (cf. 64 n.).
Finally, there is another piece of evidence which suggests that
Aratus actually alludes to the Hymn and not to some other version of
the story: in 263, when referring to the Pleiades, he uses the clausula
* M, which recurs only in h.Herm. 19 and 183.19 /)« ap-
pears in Arat. 268, five lines after * M, just as the clausula
* M appears in h.Herm. five lines before /)« (19 and 24 re-
spectively). Given the Hellenistic poets’ fondness of wordplays, acros-
tics and the like, Aratus must indeed have been alluding to a text of the
Hymn similar to ours.
5.1.5 Nicander, Alexipharmaca 559–62:

Nicander mentions Hermes’ creation of the lyre when discussing anti-
dotes to the poison of the salamander:
Ν)) # C (« !(* D # $ (
C7!! 3( $1(* !
E («α ! μ« $# σ *!φ!! /)
*), $ « ξ 1 &«.
And sometimes (the meat of a hog can be boiled with that) of a tortoise that grazes on tree-
medick, which harmless Hermes endowed with a voice, though earlier it had been voice-
less; for he deprived its variegated shell from the flesh and extended two arms at [the point
where formerly were] its feet.
18 See Faklaris (1977, 226–30) and below 39–51n.

19 Kidd (1997) on Arat. 263 notes that the reminiscence of the clausula * M of
h.Herm. is perhaps deliberate given that Maia is the mother of Hermes, the inventor of the
lyre, which is the next constellation to be presented.
88 Introduction
These verses are reminiscent of h.Herm. not only in general points of

content but also through certain verbal echoes. The tortoise is called
C (, to which we may compare h.Herm. 33 R ! &@! and 42
S ! ) @, while it is said to graze on tree-medick ( !(*;
cf. h.Herm. 27 "! (… () (). Turning an originally
voiceless creature into a vocal one parallels h.Herm. 27 and 38 and re-
flects the riddle dum vixi tacui, mortua dulce cano (see 38n.). Summa-
rizing the construction of the lyre in 561–62, Nicander mentions the re-
moval of the flesh from the carapace (cf. h.Herm. 41–42) and Hermes’
fitting two arms into it (cf. h.Herm. 50). The Hellenistic poet varies the
commoner term
/« with $ @, and his combination of $ «
and &« is particularly clever. Gow and Schofield ad loc. render
&« ‘from its edges’ but the proper sense of & (= 1«) is prob-
ably also felt here. If so, Hermes’ perversion of the animal’s nature, i.e.
the substitution of forearms for legs, would be especially striking.20 The
tortoise shell is patterned in both texts: Nicander calls it a /)
*); cf. h.Herm. 33 *) R! . We may conclude that Ni-
cander alludes to h.Herm. while varying his diction with more unusual
terms in the vein of the Hellenistic poets.21
5.1.6 [Eratosthenes] Catasterismi 24:22

This work mentions Hermes’ invention of the lyre in terms that differ
substantially from h.Herm. Hermes is said to have created the lyre from
the tortoise by using material from Apollo’s stolen cattle ( ! -
!( ξ μ ξ Kμ E
« /)@(« λ
#A*))« "), which indicates that the construction of the lyre
and the cattle theft episode were presented in the opposite order than
in h.Herm. A point of agreement between the two versions is the
number of strings, which ps.-Eratosthenes attributes to the number of
20 In h.Herm. the chelys is described in anthropomorphic terms as μ« ' ( (31 and
478), which implies that she has legs and arms.
21 Radermacher 64 points out that roughly at the same time as Nicander, Aratus alludes to
h.Herm. (see p. 86–87) while Antigonus of Carystus quotes h.Herm. 51 (see p. 270–71).
22 This work is transmitted under the title $! ! &)
and is thought to be a sum-
mary deriving from Eratosthenes’ astronomic-mythographic work entitled $! ,
), !( , or !*«; cf. Suda, s.v. 2898 #E !(«, B Il.
22.29, Ach.Tat. Intr.Arat. 24, and Geus (2002, 211–14). I quote from Olivieri (1897).
the Pleiades or the planets.23 The available summary does not indicate
whether any kind of bargain took place between the two divine brothers.
Apollo is said to have received the instrument ()"), whereupon
he composed a song and handed the lyre to Orpheus who increased the
number of strings to nine.24 There is no mention of Hermes’ singing.
5.1.7 Eratosthenes, Hermes:25

The fragments of this work are scarce and difficult to contextualize,
hence much of what follows is necessarily speculative. It seems, how-
ever, that the Cyrenean polymath combined a playfulness reminiscent
of h.Herm. with astronomical and philosophical ideas, but he also in-
cluded episodes of Hermes’ childhood that are not familiar from other
sources. The available evidence does not prove with absolute certainty
that Eratosthenes followed h.Herm. as the basis of his Hermes. It is
likely, however, that some of the events took place in Arcadia.26 Fr. 3,
transmitted in a scholion on Il. 5.422, suggests that Eratosthenes de-
rived Hermes’ title $ ( (not mentioned in h.Herm.) from Mt.
#A 7! in Arcadia.27 Arcadia is also mentioned in fr. 6 ([«
23 The reason for the number of the lyre’s strings seems to have been a matter of debate
among ancient scholars; cf. Call. Del. 253–54 (Apollo equipped his lyre with seven strings
because the swans sung seven times during Leto’s labour) and the texts cited in the follow-
ing note and in section 5.1.8.
24 Cf. the brief account in Nicomachus, p. 266 Jan: κ )1 κ
« /)@(« φ!λ μ
E
K ( λ ! ! '/ κ (! )
#O φ. Further, Musaeus 26T (Bernabé), [Orph.] 975T II (Bernabé), and [Orph.] 975
III–V (Bernabé). D.S. 3.59.2 records that Hermes invented the kithara, but Apollo ‘used it
properly’ (#A*)) ξ C9
* /
!), which presumably means
that Apollo perfected the art of kithara playing. Interestingly, in the temple of Lycian
Apollo in Argos there was a statue of Hermes who had seized a tortoise in order to con-
struct a lyre (Paus. 2.19.7). Finally, Pi. P. (K*!« P; II 1–2 Drachmann) records
that Hermes had invented the four-stringed lyre and, having stolen Apollo’s cattle, he gave
his brother the lyre and received the caduceus from him. Apollo then added three more
strings, now made of sinews rather than the thread (), lit. ‘flax’) that Hermes had used.
25 The text is cited from Powell’s CA, to which add fr. 397 SH. See also Geus (2002, 110–18)
and G. A. Keller (1946, 120–25).
26 This was perhaps unavoidable given that Arcadia had well-established credentials as the
god’s birthplace, though there were alternative traditions; cf. 2n.
27 A further mention of the Peloponnese occurs in fr. 5 where the name #A( is used. Era-
tosthenes, as a true Hellenistic scholar-poet, must have include several aitia in his poem; cf.
fr. 4 φ μ # S*(, Ρ 1 φ@ Ν (α φ μ« )7!
90 Introduction
λ /) and fr. 7 (¹ ξ ( #A 1« λ /«

‘and they, across from Aryas, at the river-mouth…’). In fr. 1 (= D Il.
24.24) we hear that Hermes stole Apollo’s cattle, but unfortunately
there are no further details; the fragment focuses on another of
Hermes’ pranks, his stealing the clothes of Maia and her sisters:
[ZL« !λ« M«
« #A)« )Ω 6H (, π ξ 3 « (
K))79(
« #A « E
(!. Ρ!« 3!/ ) Ρ
λ ZL« )5« κ 6H ( M) ] λ 7
« ( μ« $)φ
C
« )(« )Ω Kφ) « '!
«α λ ξ σ! *
<!. ) ξ 7!« $ C« « '!
«. 3 )5 ξ λ
« #A*))« "«.
[Zeus fell in love with Maia, the daughter of Atlas, and having escaped Hera’s notice he
mingled with her; and she became pregnant and gave birth to Hermes on Cyllene in Arca-
dia. He (sc. Hermes) had an inclination for stealing/deceiving (kleptein) because Zeus, too,
deceived/cheated on (klepsas) Hera and mingled with Maia.] And indeed once when his
mother was bathing together with her sisters, having escaped their notice he (Hermes) stole
their clothes; being naked, they were at a loss what to do. Having aroused a laughter on ac-
count of this, he returned the clothes to them. He also stole Apollo’s cattle.
Although both major events of h.Herm. seem to have occurred in Era-

tosthenes’ Hermes, we cannot tell which came first. The treatment of
the myth in the Catasterismi is obviously of limited value. Eratosthenes
differs from the tradition in at least one point: Hermes attaches eight
instead of seven strings to his lyre (cf. frr. 13 and 15). The Cyrenean may
have made Hermes lead the cattle on a journey similar to that in
h.Herm., as fr. 11 mentions a spring in Boeotia close to Mt. Cithaeron
( 7(« f φ(«), which may be a cryptic reference to Hermes’ stop
in Boeotia. Fr. 9 ("L« φ1 C)@, ‘a deep glen intervenes’)
may have been another reference to Hermes’ journey as he was driving
Apollo’s cattle away.28 In addition, Hermes’ invention of the fire-sticks
and perhaps his roasting the meat of the stolen cows may be alluded to
in fr. 24, which, however, Powell, following Bergk, considers part of the
$ @! (‘they called it phoriamos because it concealed his stolen hunt from them; ever
since it is called phoriamos by men’), with which Eratosthenes seems to counter other con-
current etymologies of φ *«; see Hecat. FGrH 1 F 386, Hdn. III/1 p. 170.20–22 φ-
μ« μ "@, F μ L« φ « $ ν $μ φ ( φ)!!

(cf. Hdn. III/1 p. 309, III/2 p. 20). This fragment might refer to Hermes’ theft of
Maia’s and her sisters’ clothes as Powell suggests.
28 Cf. h.Herm. 95 C)« )1«. This possibility was already suggested by Bern-
hardy (1822, 137).
Erigone.29 Finally, Eratosthenes may allude to part of Hermes’ strat-

agem in abducting the cows in fr. 9 () ! )φ
φ !, ‘he was sewing on/patching the sole of his boot’) which is
transmitted by Pollux 7.90.30 Some MSS (Bethe’s F and S) offer )
λ 1! )φ φ !«, which is both unmetrical and
yields no sense; two (B and C) omit it, while A offers W! )-
φ λ ) φ !«, whence Jungermann conjectured )
! ). Perhaps we should read with Hiller ) *
W! divisim, i.e. ‘he stiched (or attached) [branches?] to the sole of
his light shoe.’ Scanzo links this verse with a story transmitted by Hygi-
nus in which Hermes fell in love with Aphrodite.31 It is hard to imagine,
however, how this story fits into Hermes’ early life. Does Hermes reach
adulthood at some point in the poem? Or did the poet give the story a
comic twist by placing it in Hermes’ childhood?32 On the current state
of the evidence, fr. 9 cannot be associated with Hyginus’ story, but more
plausibly with Hermes’ stratagem (cf. h.Herm. 79–86).
If accepted, this association may hint at a solution to the textual
problem at h.Herm. 79. There most editors prefer Postgate’s emen-
dation C W5 for the transmitted C # 3 5 (sc. the sandals),
since no sandals of Hermes had been mentioned thus far.33 Fr. 9 – if in-
deed it relates to h.Herm. 79–86 – would suggest that Matthiae’s emen-
dation C ’ 3 5 at 79 may be the correct answer to the problem;
line 80 could be taken as a parenthetic comment, thus mitigating the ef-
fects of the asyndeton (Matthiae himself secluded it). It would then ap-
29 So too Rosokoki (1995, 41) = fr. 1. The fragment is transmitted only with Eratosthenes’
name, but without any reference to the work’s title.
30 See Holland (1926, 170).
31 See Scanzo (2002, 44–45) who follows Bernhardy (1822, 159–60). The relevant passage
from Hyginus Astron. II 16 runs: nonnulli etiam dixerunt Mercurium, alii etiam Anapladem
pulchritudine Veneris inductum in amorem incidisse, et cum ei copia non fieret, animum ut
contumelia accepta dejecisse; Iovem autem misertum eius, cum Venus in Acheloo flumine cor-
pus ablueret, misisse aquilam, quae soccum eius in Amythaoniam Aegyptiorum delatum Mer-
curio traderet; quem persequens Venus ad cupientem sui pervenit, qui copia facta pro benefi-
cio Aquilam in mundo collocavit.
32 Note that Aphrodite’s temple at Paphos is mentioned at the end of the poem; cf. P.Oxy. LII
3000 (= fr. 397 SH; 364.2 M–P3).
33 See 79n. Holland (1926, 170), followed by Keller (1946, 123), speaks of Eratosthenes’ po-
lemic against the poet of h.Herm. in this matter: if Hermes had indeed thrown away his
sandals, he could be detected by Apollo.
92 Introduction
pear that both poets were concerned with Hermes’ footwear. Typically
for a Hellenistic polymath, Eratosthenes corrects his predecessor in two
ways. Firstly, he anwers a problem in the story’s logic which has
troubled modern editors as well: the Hymn poet had not mentioned
any shoes or sandals of Hermes up to line 79. Furthermore, how did
Hermes travel from Cyllene to Pieria barefoot, to begin with? Secondly,
whereas the poet of h.Herm. speaks of sandals, which are a light type of
shoe, Eratosthenes has Hermes wear φ !, shoes normally worn
by farmers, soldiers, and athletes.34 At any rate, both poets agree in
presenting Hermes as fabricating (or modifying his already existing)
footwear.
There is no way of telling whether there was a confrontation be-
tween Apollo and Hermes similar to the one in h.Herm. and, if there
was, how it was resolved. It seems certain that Eratosthenes included an
ascent to Olympus (fr. 16), which he used as a springboard for expres-
sing his ideas on the division of the earth into five zones.
Although certain elements of h.Herm. must have appeared in Era-
tosthenes (the making of the lyre and the cattle theft), there are also
fragments which do not fit with Hermes’ story as we know it from else-
where. For instance fr. 12 mentions certain types of fish and fr. 10 refers
to a servant woman making cakes while singing the ioulos-song.35
5.1.8 Hyginus, Astronomia II 7.358–64:

Hyginus (c. 64 BC–AD 17) offers an account close to h.Herm. In an ex-
cursus to his discussion on the constellation of the Lyre, he describes its
creation:
alii autem dicunt Mercurium, cum primum lyram fecisset in Cyllene monte Arcadiae, septem
chordas instituisse ex Atlantidum numero, quod Maia una ex illarum esset, quae Mercurii est
mater. Deinde postea cum Apollinis boves abegisset, deprehensus ab eo, quo sibi facilius ig-
nosceret, petenti Apollini ut liceret se dicere invenisse lyram concessit et ab eo virgulam quan-
dam muneri accepit.
But others say that once Mercury had constructed the lyre in Mt. Cyllene in Arcadia, he
had attached seven strings (to it) on account of the number of the Atlantids, since Maia
who was Mercury’s mother was one of them. Then finally, after he abducted Apollo’s
34 See Morrow (1985, 183 no. 81); cf. Hsch. φ 48 φ !· K7« ρ« .
35 Hiller (1872, 26–27) suggested that this fragment may represent an episode equivalent to
the Onchestos episode in h.Herm.
cattle, arrested by him, he yielded to Apollo who was asking that it be permitted to him to
say that he had invented the lyre, so that he (=Apollo) might more easily forgive him, and
he (=Mercury) received a small staff from him as a gift.
Several correspondences with h.Herm. may be noted. Hyginus relates

the two events, the making of the lyre and the cattle theft, in the same
order as h.Herm., which is remarkable since most sources (whenever
we can tell with certainty) present these events in the reverse order.
Secondly, Hermes constructs his lyre in Cyllene; he attaches seven
strings to the instrument, which Hyginus explains by citing the number
of the Atlantids. Thus he follows h.Herm. in the number of strings
but supplies the reason for this number from a different source.36 In
addition, Hermes exculpates himself by offering the lyre to Apollo
when asked for it. Apollo’s request appears, although only obliquely,
at h.Herm. 437–38 (see n.). Finally, Hermes receives a staff from Apollo,
as he does in h.Herm. 528–32. Although the account in Hyginus is
heavily epitomized, these correspondences suggest that Hyginus (or his
sources) was familiar with the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.
5.1.9 [Apollodorus] 3.10 (III 112–15):

Ps.-Apollodorus’ account coincides in certain points with the Hymn,
but it also diverges in some crucial aspects. First, the points of agree-
ment. Both h.Herm. and ps.-Apollodorus mention the same parentage
(Zeus and Maia), an element too traditional to allow any variation, as
well as the same birth-place ( Ν )

« K))7(«). Hermes lies in a
winnowing-fan (λ ) «) and soon slips out of the cave
and makes his way to Pieria to steal the cows ( L« « P
). He attempts to hide his tracks by wearing shoes
(K7 « !λ ( ), but nothing is said about the
nature of these “shoes” (contrast h.Herm. 81–83). Once he has secured
the cattle in a cave at Pylos ( !« « P1) « ξ )« «
!7) $ 5), he sacrifices two animals and attaches their
hides to some rocks (1 ξ 1!« « ξ "1 !« «
7)!). Later, Apollo discovers the thief’s identity through divi-
nation (Ω ξ
«
« μ )φ*), although ps.-
Apollodorus again does not specify what type of mantike is meant
36 Cf. [Eratosth.] Cat. 24.

94 Introduction
(contrast h.Herm. 213), and makes his way to Cyllene. There is a liti-
gation scene before of Zeus in ps.-Apollodorus, though the details differ
from h.Herm. (see below). Finally, the two gods exchange the cattle and
the lyre, and Hermes creates the pan-pipes.
The differences between the two accounts are of two kinds. At times
Apollodorus varies a theme found in h.Herm., while sometimes he in-
cludes details that do not appear – or even contradict – h.Herm.
Hermes sets out for Pieria intending to steal cattle. Yet we are not told
whether these animals belong to Apollo or not. It is merely said that
Apollo was tending them ("« ψ« 3 #A*))). Although both
accounts agree on the number of cows killed, there is also an important
difference. While in h.Herm. the god is unable to partake of the meat (cf.
132–33), ps.-Apollodorus mentions that the divine child consumed
some of the meat and burned the rest ( ξ ξ ()-
! '57!« ξ !; cf. h.Herm. 136–37).
As in h.Herm., the god finds a tortoise grazing in front of his cave;
he picks up the animal, empties its shell of the soft parts, and constructs
the lyre. However, in Apollodorus this event takes place after the cattle
theft, and in fabricating the lyre the divine child uses material from the
slaughtered animals (/ « « < o 3! "). According
to ps.-Apollodorus, Hermes also invents the plectrum, whereas h.Herm.
only mentions that Hermes used it when performing on the lyre. We can
best account for these changes by assuming that ps.-Apollodorus
wished to follow a more logical order. By switching the order of events,
ps.-Apollodorus could justify where Hermes had found the material for
the strings and thus dispense with the ewe strings mentioned at h.Herm.
51. The same applies to the plectrum: since the lyre is a new instrument,
one cannot assume that the plectrum already existed; thus the inventor
of the lyre is credited with the invention of the plectrum as well.
Contrary to h.Herm., Apollo actually reaches Pylos when searching
for his cattle, and finds out by interrogating the inhabitants that a boy
had been leading them (« P1) $φ , λ L« «
$ . ¹ ξ ξ )1 3φ! ). This inter-
rogation corresponds to the scene at Onchestos at h.Herm. 185–211 in
which Apollo obtains information, albeit inconclusive, from the Old
Man.
When Apollo arrives at Cyllene, he has a conversation with Maia
during which he accuses Hermes of the theft ( μ« M «
K))7( , λ μ E

9 ». π ξ < Cμ
« ! «). This notice contrasts with h.Herm. 243–52 in
37
which Apollo bursts into Maia’s cave, utterly ignoring the nymph, and
interrogates Hermes.
The Olympian scene that follows Hermes and Apollo’s encounter in
Maia’s cave is handled differently in ps.-Apollodorus. First, Apollo
takes Hermes to Olympus (#A*)) ξ !« Cμ μ« : «
"« $9 7), whereas in h.Herm. it is Hermes who suggests that they
appeal to Zeus. Significantly, Hermes leads Apollo to Olympus (cf.
312). Second, in ps.-Apollodorus’ account Hermes refuses to return the
cattle when Zeus bids him to do so (:μ« ξ )1« $
). This may be interpreted in two ways: either that he refused to
return the cows to their rightful owner or that he denied that they were
in his possession. Either meaning amounts to the same outcome.
Contrast with h.Herm. 396 where it is explicitly said that ‘the mind of
Zeus persuaded (him) easily.’
Contrary to h.Herm., ps.-Apollodorus has Apollo propose the
exchange of the newly-fashioned pan-pipes for his golden wand,
while Hermes bargains by demanding the gift of prophecy as well
(#A*)) ξ λ 1( ")*« )", κ / !
W"
p ( " ). ² ξ λ 1( )" $λ
«
!1 « -) λ κ κ )). In h.Herm., however,
Hermes’ creation of the pan-pipes is followed by a mutual exchange
of oaths. After this exchange, Hermes receives the golden wand, which
is not the shepherd’s staff as the Hymn poet makes clear. Moreover,
ps.-Apollodorus mentions that Hermes learns the art of divination by
means of pebbles ( λ L« ! κ 57φ -
7), while the poet of h.Herm. speaks of a bee-oracle (cf. 550–65n.)
At the end of ps.-Apollodorus’ account, Zeus appoints Hermes as his
messenger (ZL« ξ Cμ 7 ' λ K/
(!), whereas at h.Herm. 567–73 it is Apollo who lists Hermes’ pre-
rogatives.38
37 LIMC, V s.v. Hermes no. 241 (fig. 3) may reflect this scene. Sophocles used this motif in the
Ichneutae, but with the substitution of Cyllene for Maia. The motif recurs in Philostratus
(see below).
38 Scholars often posit a lacuna after 568 and assume a change of speaker. See 568n. for ar-
guments against this idea.
96 Introduction
From the above it is clear that h.Herm. cannot have been the only
source of ps.-Apollodorus’ account of Hermes’ story;39 the author must
have combined h.Herm. with elements derived from other accounts of
the story. The differences from h.Herm. presented above are not con-
fined to a single part of the story, but involve the entire plot. We may
therefore ask what ps.-Apollodorus’ other sources were. Alcaeus’ Hymn
to Hermes is probably not among them as no trace of Hermes’ stealing
Apollo’s quiver is preserved in ps.-Apollodorus. [Hesiod] fr. 256 cannot
have been among the sources either since it mentioned the trans-
formation of Battus, as the prescript to Antoninus Liberalis 23 suggests
(see below). Sophocles’ satyr-play is not a good candidate either: the
tracking Satyrs (who correspond to Apollo in search of his cattle in
h.Herm.) confront Cyllene instead of Maia. I would suggest Pherecydes
of Athens as a possible source for ps.-Apollodorus’ account, two of
whose fragments mention Hermes.40 The brevity of the two fragments
on Hermes in Pherecydes makes conclusions speculative. The frag-
ments in question are FGrH 3 F 130 and 131 (= fr. 163, 164 Dolcetti).
Fr. 131 reads: 1( (sc. κ W") #A*)) C) , ³«
« "« " *) #A7, —« φ(! d 1(«. This piece of in-
formation agrees to a degree with some details of [Apollodorus’] ac-
count. First, Apollo had acquired the staff he subsequently gave to
Hermes while tending cattle; cf. [Apollod.] III 115 κ / !
W"
p ( " ) and contrast with h.Herm. 529–32
where the wand is not associated with tending cattle in any way (the
whip of 497 serves this function instead). Second, the cattle Hermes
stole did not belong to Apollo, as in h.Herm., but to Admetus. The for-
mulation in [Apollod.] III 112 λ ) "*« ψ« 3 #A*))
suggests that the cows may not have belonged to the god and certainly
does not exlude the possibility that these were Admetus’ cows. Fr. 130
which informs us that Pherecydes mentioned Hermes as a messenger of
the gods probably belongs to this story. For the complete formulation,
see Acusil. FGrH 2 F 9: 6O( « ξ C * L« S «
39 For Apollodorus’ sources, see Schwartz (1894, esp. 2878–79) and Wendel (1935, 1365–66).
Holland (1926, 163–64) considers h.Herm. as the foundation (“Grundlage”) of ps.-Apol-
lodorus’ account.
40 For Pherecydes as one of the most important sources for ps.-Apollodorus, see van der Valk
(1958, 117). See also Nobili (2011, 129–31) for Pherecydes as a transmitter of Peloponne-
sian stories.
$)« , $)) λ μ E

:μ« Ν)* φ(! ρ
λ κ 7I α 3 ξ 1( λ
« 6H «α d 1(« # ²
#A(« λ μ E
(‘For Homer says that not only the dreams
are messengers of the gods, but that Hermes and Iris too are Zeus’s
messengers; some say that she is also Hera’s messenger; and Pherecydes
the Athenian says that Hermes too [is Zeus and Hera’s messenger]’); cf.
perhaps [Apollod.] III 115 ZL« ξ Cμ 7 ' λ
K/ (!. In positing Pherecydes as a possible source for
[Apollod.] III 112–15 I do not imply that Pherecydes created this story;
rather, he systematized earlier material in a coherent account, and his
narrative on Hermes may have influenced ps.-Apollodorus’.41
5.1.10 Lucian, Dialogi Deorum 11:42

Lucian offers an exaggerated account of Hermes’ proneness to stealing.
In this short dialogue Apollo recounts to Hephaestus the new-born
Hermes’ many thievish feats, which he exaggerates so as to suggest that
Hermes, having stolen the implements of most other gods, would have
stolen even Zeus’s thunderbolt if it were not too heavy and fiery (
ξ κ " 1 « ² μ« _ λ )L μ ρ/, $ r
Kφ)). Bompaire calls it “an excellent abridgement of the Hymn to
Hermes,” while Magini suggests that it may be read “in a very wide
sense as a reinvention of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.”43
The similarities between the two texts are striking. Lucian presents
Hermes as a new-born baby still wrapped in his swaddling clothes
(cf. 11.1 μ
« M« " φ« Ν /, $ , μ *…
μ « ! «). As in the Hymn, Hermes has fashioned the
lyre, but the story differs in some important details. The relevant pas-
sage (11.4) runs:
41 See NP, s.v. for a brief account. The notion, however, that Pherecydes of Athens occupied
himself only with heroic stories is incorrect; cf. Jacoby (1947, 17 n. 12) and Schibli (1990,
79–80 n. 2).
42 I follow the text and numbering of Macleod (1987). For Hermes in Lucian’s Dialogi
Mortuorum and the Cataplous, see Halliwell (2008, 443–62); for Hermes in Lucian’s Divine
Dialogues, see Nesselrath (2010) who also offers a short overview of Hermes’ presence in
earlier literature on p. 147–49.
43 See Bompaire (2000, 573), Magini (1996, 189 n. 39), and the important analysis in Bran-
ham (1989, 135–63, esp. 146–52).
98 Introduction
/)@( K Ω R $# C

« !7<α 7/« *!«
λ &@!«, 3 ))"« 7<« λ Kλ« λ « '
/ « ))
)φ *, τ 6Hφ!, λ *, ³« $ξ C) φ
) & $! .
Having discovered somewhere a dead tortoise he put together an instrument from it; in-
deed he fitted arms into the shell and yoked them (with a cross-bar), then having attached
turning pegs and fitted a bridge (at the lower part of the shell) and tuned seven strings he
sings so delicately, Hephaestus, and harmoniously, so that I myself envy him, though I
have been practicing the art of playing the cithara for a while now.
The differences between the two accounts are that: (i) Hermes is said to
have constructed the instrument out of a dead tortoise; (ii) Apollo ap-
pears to have already been practicing the art of & for a long
time, contrary to h.Herm. where he seems to have known only the aulos-
music;44 and (iii) the technicalities of the lyre’s construction are
described in far greater detail in Lucian, who includes also parts of the
instrument omitted in the Hymn. These departures need not imply that
Lucian derived the complete account of the story from a source other
than h.Herm. The detail about the dead tortoise may be related to the
account presented in Metiochus and Parthenope (on this, see below).
The point about Apollo’s prior knowledge of & adds to the
humour of the scene since an infant appears to do better what the god
of music professes to do. Whereas in the Hymn Apollo expresses genu-
ine admiration for Hermes’ novel art, here he is jealous of Hermes’ ease
in obtaining (and in a sense, stealing) the art he had been practising for
a long time.
The cattle theft, a central event in the Hymn, does not appear in Lu-
cian. In addition, the caduceus is not given to Hermes by Apollo as in
h.Herm. but is a gift of Hephaestus instead (cf. 11.4 [#A.] K* «
# !λ λ W" ( ! κ 1, 9 x 5-
/ λ L« 1«. [Hφ.] Ω ( 3 C)
ρ, ‘(Ap.) And he is winged and has fashioned a staff with
wonderful powers, with which he leads souls and conveys the dead to
the Underworld. (Heph.) I gave it to him to be his toy’.) This is a change
that Lucian had to make in his rendering of the story, since in h.Herm.
the divine child receives the caduceus as a token of reconciliation after
44 D.S. 5.75.3 records that Hermes invented the tortoise lyre after Apollo’s and Marsyas’ con-
test; Apollo regretted his excessive punishment of Marsyas, removed the kithara’s strings,
and abstained from playing music for some time.
the exchange of the cattle for the lyre. To these, we should add that the
entire scene takes place on Olympus instead of Cyllene. This is another
necessary deviation from the Hymn since all of the DDeor. take place on
Olympus. Apollo has been, moreover, robbed of his bow and arrows,
which is not the case in the Hymn.45 In addition, Hermes does not
receive his honours from another deity as in h.Herm. but assumes
them on his own. He is not, for example, appointed the )!«
Ν)« « 6A(, but simply escapes from Olympus at night and vi-
sits the Underworld, presumably to steal as his mother suspects; cf. 11.4
3) ξ π M, ³« (ξ « 1 « ) C ) , $))# Kμ
« Ν/ Ϊ ) , )5 $ ()7 (‘and
Maia was saying that he does not stay in the sky even at night, but due
to his curiosity he descends even to Hades, certainly to steal something
from there as well’). This reference to Maia may owe something to the
frustrated mother we meet in h.Herm. Notice too that the remark on
Hermes’ visits to the Underworld occurs towards the end of Lucian’s
dialogue, just as Hermes’ appointment as the messenger to the Under-
world appears towards the end of h.Herm.
This miniature dialogue is certainly a prime example of the Lu-
cianic technique that Bompaire called transposition, i.e. the transferring
of one genre into another, in this case the hymn into the dialogue, with
accompanying adaptation (abridgement or elaboration) of the original
model.46 In DDeor. 11 Lucian uses both kinds of adaptation. He has
obviously abridged his original by omitting the cattle theft episode and
focusing only on the lyre and the young god’s thefts. He has also ex-
panded or developed, to use Bompaire’s terminology, his original to the
extreme, by presenting baby Hermes as a kleptomaniac. This abridge-
ment of h.Herm. is accomplished in a rather subtle manner that makes
the reader who is familiar with the story as presented in h.Herm.
wonder what else may be happening during Hephaestus’ and Apollo’s
conversation. The divine child has disappeared with Hephaestus’
45 Magini, loc.cit., suggests that this detail may derive from h.Herm. 514–15. However, this is
not absolutely necessary since in the Hymn the theft of the bow and arrows is presented as
Apollo’s fear. Lucian may have borrowed the story from Alcaeus or elsewhere. In h.Herm.
Apollo expresses fear only for his bow, not his quiver or arrows, a detail which, although
insufficient to establish that Lucian may not have drawn from h.Herm. alone, seems to be
closer to Alcaeus’ version as preserved in Horace Carm. 1.10 (viduus pharetra).
46 See Bompaire (2000, 562–85).
100 Introduction
while the cattle theft has not yet occurred. Is Hermes perhaps
stealing the cows and roasting some of them (hence perhaps also in-
venting the fire-sticks) while the two gods are speaking?47 At least this is
what a reader familiar with h.Herm. might surmise, who may conse-
quently fill in the narrative gap left on purpose by Lucian. If this is so,
Hermes would be putting Hephaestus’ fire-tongs into good use. Be that
as it may, there are enough indications in the text to suggest that Lucian
based his dialogue on h.Herm. although he certainly used other sources
as well.48
5.1.11 Philostratus Major, Imagines 1.26 (= II 330–32 Kayser):

Philostratus’ account shows similarities with Alcaeus’ Hymn to
Hermes. Hermes is newly born and wrapped in his swaddling clothes,
but his birth-place is Olympus rather than Arcadia.49 He takes off his
swaddling-clothes and descends from Olympus, steals Apollo’s cows,
and hides them in a cave. Once Apollo realizes that his animals have
been stolen, he demands them back from Maia. While the two gods are
conversing, Hermes sneaks behind Apollo and steals his arrows, where-
upon Apollo laughs.
This account contrasts with h.Herm. Hermes’ long journeys during
the Hymn are not mentioned in Philostratus who concentrates the
events on and around Olympus. Nor is anything said about the lyre.
The confrontation between Apollo and Maia is also missing from
h.Herm., but has a parallel in the argument between Cyllene and the
Satyrs in Sophocles’ Ichneutai and in LIMC, s.v. Hermes no. 241 (fig. 3).
Apollo’s words as imagined by Philostratus at 1.26.4 ($) κ
λ "")7! μ ") may owe something to
Apollo’s threats at h.Herm. 256–59. Furthermore, Apollo’s words
(ibid.) $ ² !μ« ¹*«, χ /ξ« 3 « remind of Hermes’ at
h.Herm. 273 /ξ« *(; and Maia’s reaction in 1.26.3 (π ξ $!
47 See Nesselrath (2010, 155). I made this suggestion already in my 2007 dissertation (p. 83).
48 Hephaestus’ representation in the dialogue seems to be informed by his characterisation in
other literary contexts. His complete unawareness of the nature of baby Hermes, to the ex-
tent that he even gives him a present (the caduceus) recalls his similar ignorance of his
wife’s love-affair in Odyssey 8.
49 Cf. Philostr. VA 5.15 (= I 176 Kayser).
λ )( F μ *) is exactly what Hermes had predicted at

h.Herm. 270–72. Philostratus’ version agrees with Alcaeus that the god’s
actions are playful; cf. 1.26.1 φ! μ E
, Ρ 9
M) -
, » ) λ Κ )
² *«, $))# Cφ !19 ( L« λ & and Horace, Carm.
1.10.7–8 iocoso…furto. In h.Herm., however, even though Hermes’ ac-
tions cause laughter, he steals with a very serious purpose in mind, to
obtain his divine honours.
5.1.12 Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses 23:

Antoninus Liberalis is our most important witness for a branch of the
tradition that focuses on the metamorphosis of Battus, the witness who
saw Hermes leading away Apollo’s cattle. The scholion that precedes
this section of Antoninus informs us that the story was also told by Ni-
cander, [Hesiod] (= fr. 256 M.-W.), Didymarchus, Antigonus, and Apol-
lonius Rhodius.
According to Antoninus, Apollo neglected his cattle which were
grazing in Thessaly because of his erotic interest in Hymenaeus, son of
Magnes. Hermes thus found the opportunity to steal many of his ani-
mals. Antoninus’ narrative offers a variant of Hermes’ stratagem in ab-
ducting the cows: the god attached branches to the cows’ tails to erase
their tracks as they were walking and led them to Maenalion, in Arca-
dia, and the place called B . The account in Antoninus’
Metamorphoses is more precise with regards to how Hermes dealt with
the watchdogs. While Apollo notes in h.Herm. that the dogs did not
react, Antoninus mentions that λ ξ ")) « !, θ
φ1) C«, )7 λ /(α θ ξ <)
" λ κ K) κ $@)! (‘and first he struck the dogs that
were guarding them with lethargy and dog-quinsy; and they forgot
about the cows and lost their ability to bark’). Battus realized that the
cows had been stolen and demanded a reward in return for his silence.
Hermes agreed, whereupon Battus swore an oath that he would main-
tain his silence. Afterwards, Hermes hid the animals in a cave in Mt.
Coryphasion by Pylos and returned to Battus in disguise to test him.
Having been promised a cloak, the man revealed what he had seen, and
Hermes, angered by Battus’ duplicity, hit him with his staff and trans-
formed him into a rock.
102 Introduction
This account differs from h.Herm. in some important ways: there is

no mention of the lyre; Hermes abducts 113 animals instead of 50 (ρ
# $)1 * « @ λ ' μ "« Ν&« λ ,
χ« « "!λ "); there is no indication that Hermes is a child
when these events take place; Apollo has a marginal role; and the focus
is on Battus and his transformation. The story is aetiological, providing
an explanation for how a place in Arcadia obtained its name. It would
be interesting to know exactly how much of what we read in Antoninus
existed in Hesiod’s account. We can be certain that the initial genealogi-
cal information about Hymenaeus was part of Hesiod’s text. But I
think we may safely assume that the transformation of Battus was also
narrated in some form in Hesiod. It would be odd if the mention
of Hesiod’s version among all these works that specifically addressed
stories involving transformations was confined to some genealogical
information.50 It is conceivable that Hesiod narrated also the story of
Battus’ transformation, especially since transformations are attested in
Hesiod’s fragments, particularly as a form of punishment.51
Similar to Antoninus Liberalis’ is the version in Ovid, Met. 2.683–
707.52 The focus is again on Battus and his transformation. In this tale
too Hermes is an adult (cf. his adventure with Herse at 2.708ff.),53 and
Battus is explicitly called a senex (688), possibly a reminiscence of the
Old Man from Onchestos as Holland suggested.54 Apollo is said to
have been tending cattle in the Peloponnese (it is not specified whose
animals these were), and his herd is said to have strayed towards Pylos.55
50 Merkelbach and West express skepticism: perpauca hic Hesiodea esse vix monendum est
(p. 125). Likewise Hirschberger (2004, 454) considers that only the genealogy of Magnes
belonged to the Great Ehoiai. On the relation between Battus and the Old Man at Onches-
tos, see Radermacher 193–94 and Holland (1926). Brown (1947, 144–47) suggests that this
story may have been told in the Ehoia of Coronis.
51 Cf. fr. 33a (Periclymenus), fr. 205.4–5 (ants transformed into humans); frr. 163, 354 (Cal-
listo); fr.43 b–c (Mestra). At fr. 67b we meet a different kind of miracle: (AC*) «) Ρ
/ !λ )"! $) ! (‘whatever he seized in his hands, he would
make everything invisible’). See Forbes Irving (1990, 12–13) and Hirschberger (2008).
52 See Castellani (1980), Keith (1995, 95–115) and Syed (2004).
53 Hermes is sometimes represented as an adult cattle-rustler in visual arts; see figs. 4 a–b
and 5.
54 See Holland (1926, 161).
55 Note memorantur in 684, a “Hellenistic footnote” meant to trigger the allusion to a pre-
vious version.
Battus happens to notice the cattle and just as in Antoninus’ account,

he is bribed with a cow by Hermes in return for his silence. When the
god returns in disguise and offers him a cow and a bull, he immediately
reveals the location of the cows, whereupon Hermes transforms him
into a durum silicem that still bears the name index (2.706).
5.1.13 Metiochus and Parthenope:

An unusual version of the lyre’s construction is attested in the Persian
verse romance by ‘Unsur· ı̄, Vāmiq and ‘Adhrā, which preserves material
from the fragmentarily known Hellenistic novel Metiochus and Parthe-
nope.56 The action takes place at the court of Fuluqrāt (= Polycrates) on
Samos, where the poet Ifuqus (= Ibycus) performs a song on the barbat
(= barbitos). The question about the invention of the instrument arises,
and Metiochus gives his own version: a wise man, named Hurmuz
(= Hermes) once chanced upon the carapace of a dead tortoise, whose
flesh had rotted away; its sinews were still in their place, and when the
wind blew through them a sound was produced which pleased Hurmuz’
heart. He then wished to build an instrument that would produce this
sound even without the aid of the wind. As he was walking he met an
old man, Hažrah-man (= Terpander?). The detail that Hermes made
the lyre from a dead tortoise is found also in Lucian (see above, p. 98)
and is reflected in Servius’s comment on V. G. 4.463 (cava testudine pe-
riphrasis citharae, cuius usus repertus est hoc modo: cum regrediens Nilus
in suos meatus varia in terris reliquisset animalia, relicta etiam testudo
est. quae cum putrefacta esset et nervi eius remansissent extenti intra
corium, percussa a Mercurio sonitum dedit. ex cuius imitatione cithara
est composita).57 Found only in Lucian, Metiochus and Parthenope, and
Servius, this account of the lyre’s invention is not particularly wide-
spread; Hermes appears to imitate something he encounters in nature,
as opposed to inventing something completely original as he does in
56 See Hägg (1989). All the textual witnesses to the novel are now edited in Hägg and Utas
(2003).
57 ‘Cava testudine is a periphrasis for the cithara, whose use was discovered in this way: when
the Nile returning to its river-bed had left on the ground various animals, there was a tor-
toise left as well. And when it had rotten and its sinews continued to be stretched inside its
shell, having been struck by Mercury, it produced a sound. In imitation of this the cithara
was constructed.’
104 Introduction
h.Herm. Hägg (1989, 70–71) suggests that Hermes’ discovery of the

dead tortoise may have been the original version of the story, and that
the presentation of the infant Hermes killing the tortoise in a manner
reminiscent of the way he kills the two cows later may be the innovation
of the Hymn poet.58
5.1.14 D on Il. 15.256:

E
« ² :μ« λ M«
« 5A)« i )1 , λ L« #A*))« "*«
)5« K ( Kμ
«
«. $) ξ #A*))«
3 )5 C λ λ c *<. !« ξ ² μ« 3 C)
κ -
κ W", $φ# x« λ / !* « !( 1(, 3)" # C κ )1 .
Ρ λ / ! %!( $μ
« « $
«.
Hermes the son of Zeus and Maia, daughter of Atlas, invented the lyre. And having stolen
Apollo’s cows he was discovered by the god through his divinatory power. When Apollo
was threatening him, he stole from him even the bow on his shoulder. And the god, smi-
ling, gave him the staff of divination, from which he was also named chrysorrapis (= he of
the golden wand), and he (= i.e. Apollo) received from him the lyre. He was therefore
named chrysaor (= he of the golden belt) as well, on account of the strap attached to the ci-
thara.
This condensed account preserves certain details that make it likely that
its author knew h.Herm. As in the Hymn, the lyre’s construction seems
here to precede the abduction of the cattle. Apollo discovers Hermes
through divination (this seems closer to ps.-Apollodorus rather than
the Hymn). Hermes becomes the god of the golden wand after he re-
ceives the staff from Apollo (cf. 530 and 539). However, in h.Herm. the
lyre is not given in exchange for the golden staff, but for a !
φ7 and the patronage of " ) (497–98). The scholion, fur-
thermore, mentions Hermes’ stealing of Apollo’s bow, which does not
occur in the Hymn (it is hinted at in 515). We may conclude that the
scholiast (or his source) perhaps knew h.Herm., but the Homeric Hymn
is not the only source for this account; Alcaeus’ Hymn probably in-
fluenced the Scholiast, who transmits information that has been ex-
cerpted from different sources and at different times.59
58 But cf. Brillante (2001, 123–28), who links this account to stories concerning the invention
of the aulos and disagrees with Hägg on the question of the accounts’ priority.
59 Terzaghi (1913, 42–46) proposes that this scholion derives from Eratosthenes’ Hermes.
5.1.15 Paus. 8.17.5 transmits the following notice: 3/ ξ Ν)) R «

K))7(« X)* , 3 K Ω /)@( E
« μ
( λ $# C
« ) 7!! )1 (‘and another moun-
tain is adjacent to Cyllene, Chelydorea, where Hermes is said to have
found a tortoise, flayed the animal, and made a lyre out of it’; cf.
h.Herm. 24 3 /) K @). We cannot determine whether the nar-
rative of this condensed aetiological story mentioned that Hermes was
a child at the time or not. The event takes place in the general area
pointed to in the Hymn.60
5.1.16 IG XIV 2557 = Epigr.Gr. 1032 Kaibel (Augusta Treverorum,

date unknown):
…
[… μ«] S[(
…]
[…]« $)φ( […]
[… ]o)« 5A . […]
[… )1 ( K @], )( $[ …] 5
[# ]!( :*«, E
[ …]
[χ« « … ]C )[! …]
[ μ« !, μ ]!, Ν[ …]
At line 2 μ« S(
has been restored; cf. h.Herm. 14. Line 5
)1 ( K @], )( o $[ (‘having invented the lyre, a spell
against (?) distress’ presumably itacism for $), if correctly re-
stored, may be an echo of h.Herm. 447 ! $(/ )@.
5.1.17 P.Oxy. VII 1015 (= GDRK I 54–55; 1847 M-P3; 3rd c. AD) pre-
serves an encomium in honour of a certain Theon who held the office of
gymnasiarch.61 In the left and lower margins we read ·E ¯ @-
, with E erased and substituted (in the left margin and some-
what higher) by « μ Ν / (i.e. Theon). Lines 1–7 are of interest
to us since they recall the story of h.Herm.:
60 Cf. Paus. 9.30.1 λ #A*)) /) « ! E) λ E

« /* λ
«
)1 «. No other information is preserved on this quarrel.
61 For the text and translation, see Page (1962b, 526–29). See also Pordomingo (2007,
425–28), who includes a photograph of the papyrus in fig. 4. Some similarities were
pointed out by the first editor of this encomion, A. Hunt: P.Oxy. VII 1015.4–5 ~ h.Herm.
17, P.Oxy. VII 1015.7 ~ h.Herm. 570–71.
106 Introduction
C*« μ $! Kφ7 ,

E , !1!«, $*))
# 7«,
' / !! )1 ( )(/ 1,
κ Cμ« « !!λ 1!(«
Ν !@, )1 ξ " * « #A*))α 5
1 !*) ! )! $,
$ * ξ μ * )! "
«.
Hermes, may you yourself hasten to sing to me of the youth
who is your interpreter, and may you aid the singer,
plucking with your hands the seven-stringed many-toned lyre,
which you first constructed just as you fell by the feet
of your mother and you gave it as ransom to Apollo for his cows.
Therefore, youths praise you as a singer,
while the field-dwelling herdsmen praise you as the god of pasture.
This poem resembles the story of h.Herm., though it need not depend di-
rectly on the Hymn: the god fabricates the seven-stringed lyre as soon as
he is born ( !!λ 1!(« | Ν !@ ~ h.Herm. 20 χ« λ λ
κ ( μ« $# $ * ), and he exchanges it with Apol-
lo’s cattle. We might also compare κ Cμ« « with
h.Herm. 25 E
« @! /) 7# $*. The idea that
the lyre was given as recompense for Apollo’s cows (and the accompany-
ing paretymology of )1 from )1 ) derives from the scholiastic/lexi-
cographic tradition; cf. Eust. Il. II 132 (p. 575), Et.Gud. p. 375.6–9, EM
p. 572.1–4, Nic. Al. 560 (quoted at 437n.), and Marc. D.T. p. 308 and
Vatic. D.T. p. 173 Hilgard.62 Line 20 (M! !φ(« («)
62 Vatic. D.T. p. 173 Hilgard is particularly interesting: F ( ξ )1 , )1 « σ!α

φ!λ Ρ ξ E
« #A ) $! φ*« i /)@( λ *5«
(! ) )1 «α π ξ « H) "« )5 ")7(, λ μ
μ C 1, !)7φ(α Ω« ξ λ μ ! *,
Kξ ' κ )1 )1 , λ ) @( )7« (‘it has been
called a lyre (lyra), as it is some kind of ransom (lytra). For they say that once upon a time
Hermes was going about in Arcadia and found a tortoise, and having slaughtered it he
made the hollow part of the lyre out of it. And when he wished to steal the cattle of the Sun
and was unable on account of the god’s mantic abilities, he was apprehended; but knowing
the god’s music abilities as well, he gave him the lyre as ransom for himself and was freed of
the charge’). In addition to conflating Apollo with the Sun god (the Sun is said to be a
musician as well!), !)7φ(, Kξ ' κ )1 )1 , and )-
@( seem to point to a version in which Hermes failed to steal Apollo’s cows and was
instead arrested; it would thus be a story about a thief falling into his own trap. This might
be hinted at in our Hymn at 319 λ )1(« Ω )7/ i ; it is otherwise
difficult to see how Apollo could be called )7/« in h.Herm. But just as in our
Hymn, the fabrication of the lyre takes place before the cattle theft. Hermes was probably
may recall h.Herm. 483 (/9 ( λ !φ9 ( («).63 The poem

concludes Hermes’ invocation by mentioning his cult-title @« (v.
8), which however is not even hinted at in h.Herm.
5.1.18 Nonnus, Dionysiaca 1.337–40:

E φ1)< " )* /9 (
7 ! )"Ω Ϊ 'μ )5
,
λ ( S! )
) ¹ d")

Ϊ « 4 7).
Beware of cattle-stealing Hermes with his usual craft, lest he, seizing you like a bull, should
carry off his father and give your son Phoibos a lyre again to be a treasured memento of a
robber who himself became the booty.
Hera, who has noticed that Zeus had transformed himself into a bull
and carried Europa over the sea to Crete, functions here as a reflecting
character,64 commenting with bitter irony on the action that is taking
place at the moment. In the first instance, Nonnus presents her as draw-
ing the myth to its extreme: a farmer, unaware of the bull’s identity,
might yoke the animal and use it in the fields. Hera then combines the
present situation (Zeus’s transformation into a bull) with other mytho-
logical stories that feature a bull (or a cowherd): Selene and Endymion,
Io, and finally Hermes the cattle-thief. The reference to the cattle-theft
story is brief, but it encompasses both central events of the Hymn.
Hermes is a " )*« (cf. )
" at 14, though Selene is called
) " at Nonn. D. 1.331), a usual activity of Hermes as
/9( at 337 indicates. The cithara is given by Hermes to Apollo and it
is conceived of as a treasured object or heirloom, perhaps recalling the
!7() of 509 where the « functions even today (3 λ )
as the symbol of the φ) between Hermes and Apollo. A reminiscence
of the Hymn is thus possible; cf. ) at 339 which suggests that
an adult when he committed these actions in the scholion’s source (this applies also to the
other scholia or dictionary entries cited above). The motif of Hermes’ capture may be con-
siderably old (7th c. BC), if Yalouris’ identification of the figures in the Corinthian crater
Louvre E 633 (fig. 6) is correct; see 409–14n.; if so, it would be reasonable to assume that
our poet might have been familiar with it. Finally the scholion on Nicander records that
Apollo was working for Admetus when Hermes stole his cattle (cf. Ant.Lib. 23).
63 See Vox (1998, 190–91). West (1969, 9) proposes that line 20 depends on [Hes.] fr. 306
(« !φ(« ( *.
64 See Kuhlmann (1999, esp. 397–98). For Hermes in the Dionysiaca, see Fayant (1998).
108 Introduction
Hermes has committed this action in the past. The narrative of

Hermes’ cattle-theft that had the greatest impact was of course h.Herm.
Summary and Conclusions:

On the basis of the above we may attempt to categorize the different
versions. Some mention only the abduction of the cattle (Antoninus
Liberalis, and Ovid). Alcaeus, Lucian, Philostratus, and the scholion on
Il. 15.256 include Hermes’ theft of Apollo’s bow as well. On the other
hand, a number of sources present only the fabrication of the lyre, a
story that Radermacher p. 190 considers Arcadian: of these, Aratus and
Nicander derive from h.Herm., Metiochus and Parthenope preserves an
unusual version, whereas Lucian depends in part on the Hymn while
showing affinities with the story as told in Metiochus and Parthenope. A
far greater number of sources refer to both the cattle-theft and the con-
struction of the lyre (h.Herm., Sophocles, [Erat.] Catasterismi, Erat.,
Hermes, Hyginus, [Apollod.], P.Oxy. VII 1015, the scholion on Il.
15.256, and the scholia on Dionysius Thrax). Of these, some present the
fabrication of the lyre as preceding the cattle-theft (h.Herm., Hyginus,
P.Oxy. VII 1015, the scholion on Il. 15.256, and the scholia on Diony-
sius Thrax), others follow a more logical order and present Hermes first
stealing the cows, then constructing the lyre ([Apollod.], [Erat.] Cat.),
while in some cases we cannot tell with certainty which event came first
(Sophocles, Eratosthenes, Hermes). Another important distinction has
to do with Hermes’ status during these events. In some versions Hermes
is an adult (Antoninus Liberalis, Ovid Metamorphoses 2, Metiochus and
Parthenope, and perhaps the Vatican scholion on D.T.; see also figs.
4a–b, 5); of these, Antoninus and Ovid are clearly related to each other
and focus on the metamorphosis of Battus, a story that was related in
some form in the Great Ehoiai ([Hes.] fr. 256). On the other hand, there
are a number of sources which present Hermes as a child: Alcaeus (who
probably was the first to introduce Hermes the thief as a child, and on
whom Horace Carm. 1.10 depends), h.Herm. (whose author may have
been the first to combine the construction of the lyre with the cattle-
theft episode), Sophocles, Ichneutai, Aratus (who depends on h.Herm.),
Eratosthenes, Hermes, Lucian, Philostratus, and P.Oxy. VII 1015. Ni-
cander does not explicitly mention whether Hermes was an infant or
not, but given the allusions to h.Herm., we may assume that he too
thought of Hermes as an infant. In the case of [Erat.] Cat., we are in the
dark. There may have also existed a version in which Hermes was ar-
rested by Apollo; this is alluded to in vase painting (Corinthian Crater
at Louvre, E 633), is possibly reflected in h.Herm. (409–14), and appears
in the Vatican scholion to Dionysius Thrax.
In any case, the Homeric Hymn to Hermes narrates the cattle theft
as following the construction of the lyre and is distinguished from
other versions through its presention of Hermes as the « K 7«
of several objects and institutions, through its extreme humour that
sometimes leads to the impression that this is a parody of a hymn, and
through its nevertheless serious concern with questions pertaining to
poetry, music, and language, as we saw above (section 2).
What follows is an attempt to present the relation between some of
the versions schematically:
Earlier hexameter Hymn?
7th BC 7th BC
(Louvre E 633)
Alcaeus ?
6th 6th
? [Hesiod] fr. 256
(Vase H.H.HERMES
5th paintings) 5th
Sophocles, Ichn.
Hellanicus, Atl. Pherecydes
4th 4th
Aratus
3rd 3rd
Erat. Hermes
2nd 2nd
Nicander
1st ? 1st
Metiochus & Parthenope
1st AD Horace, [Apollodorus] 1st AD
? Ovid, Fasti 5
Ovid, Met. 2
Hyginus
2nd Antoninus Liberalis 2nd
Lucian, DDeor
Philostratus
3rd 3rd
? P.Oxy. VII 1015
4th 4th
5th Nonnus 5th
Epigr.Gr. 1032 (date?) D Il. 15.256
plausible relation
________________ certain relation
110 Introduction
5.2 Allusions to the Homeric Hymn to Hermes65

In this section I only list those echoes of h.Herm. which seem to consti-
tute a conscious allusion to a given passage in the Hymn. (Mere verbal
reminiscences, which are certainly important for ascertaining the
poem’s Nachleben, are indicated in the apparatus similium.) The major-
ity of these echoes derive from Apollonius Rhodius (5.2.5–13) and Cal-
limachus (5.2.14–18) and have some relation to themes presented in
h.Herm., though not with its main plot (i.e. the cattle-theft and the fab-
rication of the lyre). One reference is a quotation (5.2.4), which I have
discussed more extensively elsewhere.66
5.2.1 The Homeric Hymn to Hermes and the Homeric Hymn to Pan
It seems highly probable that the Homeric Hymn to Pan (h.Hom. 19)
has been influenced by h.Herm. This has already been argued by Janko
(1982, 185), who pointed out that (i) the forms (h.Hom. 19.2,
37) and π) (h.Hom. 19.37) recall the form 3 from
h.Herm. 449; (ii) the sense of ! ‘song’ is paralleled by h.Herm. 447;
(iii) both poems have a proportionally high number of compound ad-
jectives.67 At h.Hom. 19.28–47, furthermore, Pan and the nymphs sing
an inset hymn to Hermes whose opening, as Janko points out, presents
some similarities with the opening of h.Herm. These are:
h.Hom. 19.28 E ( 1* ~ h.Herm. 3 (Ν) $) 1
h.Hom. 19.30–31 W# Ρ # « #A ( ) , ( 7)
< #, 3 ¹ « K))( ! ~
h.Herm. 2 (K))7(«) λ #A (« )7)
h.Hom. 19.34 1φ9( ) ) : 1« φ)*(
~
h.Herm. 4 1φ9 ( )* « :μ« φ)*( !.
Finally, both gods are described towards the beginning of their respect-
ive Hymns by means of a cascade of characterizations; cf. h.Hom. 19.2,
37 and h.Herm. 13–15.
65 For the Nachleben of the Homeric Hymns between the fifth and third centuries BC, see
now Faulkner (2011); on h.Herm. see especially p. 190–91.
66 See Vergados (2007a).
67 It is also argued by O. Thomas (2009, 297–99) and idem (2011, 166–68). See also Fröhder
(1994, esp. 327–33).
We should also note the differences between these two poems: in

h.Herm. Hermes is born in Cyllene, whereas in h.Hom. 19 the god ar-
rives to Cyllene where he has a temenos; nothing is said of his birth
there. In addition, Hermes’ arrival at Arcadia is motivated by his desire
for Dryops’ daughter; to satisfy his *« K *« (h.Hom. 19.33) he
even tends the herds of a mortal.
Despite these differences and even though the echoes of h.Herm.
are found at the opening of the inset hymn in h.Hom. 19, where one ex-
pects to find traditional material, there are some considerations that
make the idea that h.Hom. 19 depends on h.Herm. attractive. Both
Hymns treat the theme of the god’s arrival at Olympus, and in both the
newborn god, wrapped in swaddling-clothes (Hermes) or in animal
skins (Pan) causes the Olympians to laugh. Although the inset hymn
begins by singing of Hermes, in reality it is an alternative ‘Hymn to
Pan,’ echoing themes of the framing song, and perhaps distorting them,
as echo generally does: the god’s parentage (h.Hom. 19.1 E
φ) *, 36 E 9 ( φ) ¹*), his appearance (h.Hom. 19.2, 37;
h.Hom. 19.23–24 )φ« … ) *«, 43 ! … )) ; h.Hom.
19.5–6 $) | C/7#, 39 $)/ ).68 It will be
remembered that h.Herm. contains an alternative Hymn to Hermes, re-
cited by Hermes himself and focusing on the god’s parentage, just as
Pan (and the nymphs) sing this alternative hymn to Pan that also
stresses the god’s parentage. Furthermore, even though the gods laugh
with Pan and his grotesque ugliness – this reaction accounts for Pan’s
name, cf. h.Hom. 19.45–47 – the gods must be laughing with Hermes as
well for producing such offspring.69 In view of these considerations, it
makes good sense to posit that in praising Pan the poet of the Hymn to
Pan was inspired by Hermes’ presentation in h.Herm.,70 and it would
not be surprising if the two Hymns were composed either by poets be-
longing to the same milieu or even by the same poet.
5.2.2 Antim. fr. 3 (Matthews): 8 ¹ K («, χ« <κ>

»! $!!, | Ν λ †! 9
7!, *φ F(
68 On Echo in the Hymn to Pan, see Germany (2005).

69 The Hymn to Pan, then, belongs to the tradition of the humorous presentation of Hermes
in poetry for which I have argued in Vergados (2011b).
70 For the similarities between Hermes and the Vedic Pusan (= Pan), see p. 553.
112 Introduction
| d « 1 ( ((, —« W ' 7 « | (ξ Ν))«

ξ< φ !!* C. (‘therefore the son of Cronus, who rules
far and wide, created a shady cave (?) so that Phoenix’s daughter might
remain hidden, evidently in order that no other god besides him should
take notice of her’).71
2 λ ! μ Schellenberg λ ! * Boesch λ ! 9

Pr A λ ! (9

R Ν )
3 ! (κ O. Schneider λ
!9
( Meineke !/9
Herm.
cf. h.Herm. 6–9: M | 1φ( )* « :μ« φ)*( ! |
(· ξ )1# Ρ) | Ν 3! !
)! , 3 K | 1φ9 ( ) ) !! μ«
$)) , |…| )7 $« L« (1« # $ @«. In
this fragment, transmitted by Steph. Byz. p. 618.21, Antimachus pro-
vides the etymology of Teumessus, a Boeotian mountain: Zeus created
(λ … 7!) there a shady cave so that Europa might be hidden
and not be detected by any other god. This explanation involves a situ-
ation similar to that at the proem to h.Herm.: we learn of one of Zeus’s
secret loves (Europa/Maia), whom he meets in a shady cave (Teumessus/
Cyllene),72 in order that this affair remain secret. As Wyss (1936, 3)
notes in his apparatus, “totius fragmenti persimile est initium hymni
Hom. in Merc. 3–9.”73
5.2.3 Sotad.Com. 1.28–29 ! ! !« S | -

5 # —! )μ « ))κ φ (‘I have wrapped [the
bonito] in its swaddles [= a fig-leaf] after I sprinkled oregano, and I hid
it in the thick ash like a torch’) ~ h.Herm. 237–38 ! # 3!
7’α 1 ))κ | $ κ 8)(« !μ«
$φ )1. The speaker describes a recipe for cooking a bonito
($(), which can also be found at Archest. 36.6–10. We are dealing
here with a parodistic epic reminiscence such as we often meet in Matro
or Archestratus.
71 The transmitted λ ! (9

yields poor sense, while λ ! 9

is unmetrical. λ is to be taken
in tmesi with 7!, and an adjective (whether ! * or ! *) should be supplied
with Ν . On the textual problem in line 2, see Matthews (1996, 85–86).
72 There is of course a difference between the two texts: in Antimachus Zeus creates the cave
for the purpose of hiding Europa, in h.Herm. the cave already exists as the dwelling of
Maia.
73 But note the remarks in Matthews (1996, 90–91): “the fragment as a whole shows some
similarity to Hy. Herm., 3–9, although the resemblance is not as close as Wyss suggests.”
5.2.4 Antig. Mirab. 7: Antigonus of Carystus quotes h.Herm. 51 in his

Mirabilia 7 with a textual variant (() instead !φ@«); see
51n.
5.2.5 A.R. 1.365 ~ h.Herm. 128 )) λ ) (both in the same
sedes).74 The phrase is found only in these two poets. In h.Herm. )-
@ is the flat stone on which Hermes deposits the meat before he
divides it into portions, and it fulfils the function of a ritual cult-table.
In A.R. it is a rock on which the Argonauts lay their clothes before they
launch the Argo into the sea. J. Clauss detects an allusion to h.Herm.
112–29 (the dais/sacrifice scene) in A.R. 1.363–401, whereby the
launching of the Argo is compared to Hermes’ “sacrifice.” But such an
allusion is doubtful.75
5.2.6 A.R. 1.457–59 # $"λ« $))7)! | # s

)) λ λ F) | « '5*, Ρ# Ν«
8" « $( (‘then they spoke to each other in turns just as young men
often amuse themselves pleasantly during the feast and wine-drinking,
when insatiate insolence is absent’) ~ h.Herm. 55–56 1 |
π"(λ )9 (! "*) !. Both passages contain a
clause of comparison (s ~ 1) and both refer to young men (
~ ) who participate at feasts ( λ λ F) ~ )9
(!).
Apollonius’ « '5* corresponds to π"( … "*)
!.76 '5»! ‘amuse oneself’ is sometimes used of the
74 See Ardizzoni (1967) ad loc.
75 See Clauss (1993, 69–74); the analogies he proposes (besides this common phrase) are:
the digging of a trench (cf. the "* « in h.Herm.) where the Argonauts place logs on which
to propel the ship; they then reverse the oars and use them to push the Argo forward (cf.
Hermes’ spits), which causes smoke to arise (cf. the smoke from the roasted meat in
h.Herm.). Clauss also cites in support A.R. 1.394 and the verb 7! used in A.R.
1.395 for the Argonauts’ distribution of the seats, which however in its only occurrence in
Homer (Od. 14.434) is used of distributing meat in a banquet setting. Furthermore, both
stories involve a quest in which the hero has to retrieve a prize animal; and A.R. 1.496–511
look back to Hermes’ theogony (on this, see below). While there is an echo of h.Herm. in
A.R. 1.394 and 496–511, the comparison between the launching of the Argo and Hermes’
banquet seems too contrived: what would be the point of comparing the ship with roasted
stolen cows? Besides, the fact that 7! is used is no argument in favour of such a
comparison: Hellenistic poets do sometimes use Homeric vocabulary in un-Homeric ways.
76 Caggìa (1972, esp. 28) argues that through the use of and « A.R. calls
attention in this passage to a problem in Homeric philology, namely the precise meaning of
'5»! (= ‘converse’ or ‘amuse oneself’?).
114 Introduction
activities at the symposion; cf. Od. 21.429–30 C 3 λ Ν))«

'5! | )9
λ φ* α ’ $7 *«, ‘and
then to amuse ourselves also in another way, with song, dance, and the
phorminx; for these are indeed the ornaments of the feast’ (cf. Od.
17.530), Ar. Lys. 1302, Call. Dian. 2–3. '5* refers to youths’
playful, teasing repartees at the symposia (note Ρ 8" « Ν«
$(); cf. 56 π"( (= revellers, see n. ad loc.) and !.
5.2.7 A.R. 1.494–518 ~ h.Herm. 418–35. In both scenes the power of

theogonic song puts an end to a quarrel that either has already erupted
(as in the case of Apollo and Hermes) or is about to erupt (as in the case
of the Argonauts). The verbal echoes are the following:
(i) A.R. 1.495 )9
$!/*« (‘lifting the cithara with his
left hand’) ~ h.Herm. 418 )1 ( # # $ ! / μ« )"*
(ii) A.R. 1.495 & $
« (‘he attempted to sing’) may be a re-
working of h.Herm. 419 7& «: in the Hymn Hermes
tests whether the strings of his lyre are tuned by plucking them one by
one. If Apollonius’ & $
« is indeed a reference to h.Herm.
419, then it is tempting to suggest that Apollonius had a version of
h.Herm. in mind that read )« (i.e. what our codd. transmit at
419 and 501) instead of « (an emendation at 419 and 501 pro-
posed on the basis of line 53).
(iii) A.R. 1.496ff. - # ³« … # ³« … ³« … λ ³« … ~ h.Herm.
428ff. … ³« … λ ³« …
(iv) A.R. 1.512 $" !9 ( … C9
~ h.Herm. 426 7 … φ7
(v) The song has a similar effect in A.R. 1.515 ( ()() ) * !φ
)) ) $
« (‘such a spell of song had he left behind’)
and h.Herm. 434 μ # 3 « !7!! $7/« F *
(vi) A.R. 1.518 8 ξ φ« @ (‘they were mindful of
sleep in the darkness’) ~ h.Herm. 449 ( !) λ D 8
')!.77 The theogony performed by Orpheus is Orphic/Empedo-
clean in terms of its content, but in its function it resembles Hermes’
theogony. Both h.Herm. and A.R. are aware of the power of song as de-
scribed in Hes. Th. 93–103.
77 Cf. Gaunt (1977). Clauss (1993, 83–85) acknowledges that “the reconciliatory power of
theogonic poetry is celebrated in the Hymn to Hermes.”
5.2.8 A.R. 1.1182–84 3 # 3# ¹ ξ <1) , λ ξ

)/( | φ)) )@ φ Ν! $7!« | !* -
!α λ # σ 7 1! (‘Then some where carrying dry
logs, others countless leaves which they had plucked to spread so as to
lie on; and others were twirling fire-sticks’) ~ h.Herm. 111–13 E
«
@! 7 # $ . | )) ξ ») -
) λ "* ) | σ) )"Ω ( ( (cf. h.Herm.
136 <1) []). In both instances dry logs ») / <1)
are gathered and the fire-sticks are used (in h.Herm. they are invented),
and both descriptions precede the preparation of a meal.
5.2.9 A.R. 3.129–53 ~ h.Herm. 155–61: Of particular interest are the

following echoes:
(i) A.R. 3.129 # )« ~ h.Herm. 155 ! )
;
(ii) A.R. 3.129 Νφ * ~ h.Herm. 160 )( … ;
(iii) A.R. 3.132 ))ξ« Ν ~ h.Herm. 40, 52 μ
Ν (same sedes);
(iv) A.R. 3.152 _ * < C# $7! ~
h.Herm. 462 @! # $) λ « )« C $7!.
In both passages we witness a humorous domestic scene: a disappointed
divine mother chastises her mischievous young son. What is more, both
divine children have given proof of their trickery before these scenes:
Eros by cheating Ganymede in the astragaloi game, Hermes by stealing
Apollo’s cattle and employing a clever stratagem. While h.Herm.
155–61 is the basis for this scene in the Argonautica, Apollonius also
uses elements from other parts of h.Herm. (esp. iii and iv). Note, finally,
that coming from Aphrodite C# $7! sounds ironic.78
5.2.10 A.R. 3.516 ! /*« # $* ! « ~ h.Herm. 304–305
² # σ# $* ! « K))7« E
« | !9
@. $* !
« occurs only in these two texts (both same sedes), while
! /*« has the same metrical shape and appears in the same
sedes as !9
@ in h.Herm., which comes in the following line. The
reference is humorous: Telamon rises quickly, eager to undertake the
impossible task Aeëtes has assigned Jason, if the leader of the Argo-
78 See M. Campbell (1983, 18–19) and idem (1994) ad loc. Further references to h.Herm. in
this section are proposed by Pace (2004).
116 Introduction
nauts considers himself unable to bring it to completion; this is also the

reaction of many of the heroes, λ *« μ 1 3!!
Ν)« (3.515). But Hermes rises quickly and begins to run in order to
avoid his elder brother who tried to seize and discipline him.
5.2.11 A.R. 4.616 /*« λ ~ h.Herm. 236* /*

λ "!. Both phrases occur in the same sedes and have Apollo as
their subject, who in both cases arrives at a place (cf. h.Herm. 228
K))7(« # $φ R « 8)9 ( ~ A.R. 4.614 _« Γ -
" ¹ μ « !φ ). In both texts the punishment of
Asclepius by Zeus is referred to: in Apollonius the death of Asclepius
(μ … | K λ« 3 , A.R. 4.616–17; cf. h.Herm. 229–30)
causes Apollo grief, while h.Herm. 256–59 alludes to the punishment of
Apollo for killing the Cyclopes who had fabricated Zeus’s thunderbolt
by which Asclepius had been killed (see 254–77n.). Apollonius alludes
to h.Herm. but refers to a different punishment of Apollo (exile from
Olympus); in other sources he was forced to work for Admetus, during
which time Hermes stole his cattle.
5.2.12 A.R. 4.877 Cκ , 9

)( «, 1# R « ~ h.Herm.
147 Κ 9 ( S 9
) « 1# S/)(. Besides the verbal simila-
rities, there is a general resemblance in context. Both passages refer to
gods (Thetis, Hermes) who perform miraculous deeds that involve fire
(Thetis attempts to make Achilles immortal; the one-day-old Hermes
has roasted two cows and prepared a feast). Hermes enters his home
(cf. 148 1!« # Ν < (*), while Thetis abandons
Peleus’ palace (cf. A.R. 4.878 "
W# F «).
5.2.13 A.R. 4.906–909 B!( λ / !λ '« φ* 1!!«
| μ /) )« /(! $
«, | Rφ # Ν«
)« " $ λ | ) (‘He strung his Bisto-
nian phorminx in his hands and let the impetuous melody of his swift-
moving song resound, so as to fill the Sirens’ ears with the sound of his
twanging’) ~ h.Herm. 51–54 ' ξ () S 1!!
/ «. | … | )7 ) 7& «, π # Kμ / μ« |
! ) "(!α μ« # Kμ )μ Ν. In both passages
we have a reference to stringing/tuning the lyre expressed through
1!!«/1!!; the instrument is then said to produce a loud
and awesome sound (" $ … ) ~ ! )

"(!). This suggests that Apollonius, like Sophocles, might have
taken ! ) "(! in its usual sense in epic, of a loud and
frightening sound, which would suit the context here: through his loud
performance Orpheus out-sings the Sirens.
In what follows I note some allusions to h.Herm. in Callimachus’
Hymns (5.2.14–18). All these derive from Hymns in which the god’s
prodigious childhood is a prominent theme. (At 5.2.18 the topic is not
the childhood of a god, but Teiresias’.) The Hellenistic poet certainly
realized the humorous potential of divine (or heroic) childhood, and
such references to h.Herm., the archetypal poem about the divine child,
should not come as a surprise. Even though Callimachus did not
compose a hymn in his honour, Hermes is nevertheless obliquely pre-
sent in the Hymns collection, which perhaps suits his divine persona and
Callimachus’ allusive technique better.79
5.2.14 Call. Jov. 68 7 # μ # K / $)@( (‘you

appointed as your messenger the bird that is by far the most excellent’)
~ h.Herm. 295–96 * … | … $!) $)@(.
5.2.15 Call. Jov. 87–88: '! « *« ) _ 7!9 (α |

'! « !, # σ 7!9 ( (‘That one [sc. Ptolemy]
truly accomplishes in the evening what he conceives of at dawn; the
most important things (he accomplishes) in the evening, but the smaller
ones as soon as he conceives of them’) ~ h.Herm. 17–19 )« Ω«
!) - &, | '! « "« )5 ' ("*)
#A*))«.
Clauss (1986, 161–66) adds to these two allusions some words and
phrases that are attested only at h.Herm. before Callimachus’ Hymn
to Zeus: 3 P()* )
(= ‘one who leads/drives away’;
cf. h.Herm. 14 )
"), 15 3 !# λ 7( )
$7 *) (cf. h.Herm. 20 χ« λ λ κ ( μ« $#
$ * ), 48 ) ) λ / !)
(cf. h.Herm. 21 ¹ ) λ
) )), 78 )1 (« σ *« F« (cf. h.Herm. 451 ρ« $
«),
49 ( 3" « (cf. h.Herm. 559 ( "*! ), 91 '
79 For the motif of divine childhood in Hellenistic poetry, see Ambühl (2005) and Radke
(2007, esp. 198–200, 212–33).
118 Introduction
(elsewhere used of Hermes; cf. Od. 8.335, h.Hom. 18.2, 29.8); and
the fact that the birth of both gods is followed by a search (Hermes
searches for Apollo’s cattle, Rhea searches for water). For Clauss
these reminiscences of h.Herm. relate to Callimachus’ references to
Ptolemy Philadelphus’ usurpation of his elder stepbrother’s (Cerau-
nus) throne.
5.2.16 Call. Dian. 25 7( … φ) $7 ~ h.Herm. 20

( μ« $# $ * . It will also be remembered that
when Callimachus’ Artemis found her first deer (at 100) the poet de-
scribed it as / « (which may owe something to /
of
h.Herm. 400).
5.2.17 Call. Dian. 68–69 ² ξ @« / | 3 / E («

!9
/ « 9
(‘and Hermes comes out from the innermost
corner of the house, covered in red-brown ashes’) seems to allude to
h.Herm. 237–39, a simile that compares Hermes concealing himself in
his swaddling clothes to glowing coals hidden in ash ( 1 ))κ |
$ κ 8)(« !μ« $φ )1, | γ« E
« E -
Ω $) ‘ C*).
5.2.18 Call. Lav.Pall. 123–24 ! # R /«, χ« F!« b

| Ν) λ C $λ « (‘and he will know
which of the birds is a good omen and which fly vainly and whose wings
are not truth-telling’) ~ cf. h.Herm. 544 φ9
! )(

# ξ 9
and 546 5)*! … !. transmits φ9
λ
1!! at h.Herm. 544, and if 1!! is not a gloss for 9

!,
it might suggest that Callimachus knew a version of the Hymn that had
’s reading here.
5.2.19 Callimachus SH 259.12–14 (= fr. 177.12–14 Pfeiffer):

[/)( *|#] σ « π[]
D # $ |!«, λ ) [#] Κ φ [!;]
[<] « |L« 3)! Κ *«.
Why have you come here again, troublesome neighbours, to scrape off our belongings? For
you cannot take anything away at all any more. God has created you to be a cause of wail-
ing for hosts.
Cf. h.Herm. 155–56, 160–61:

!L )
* * μ« — 9
(
3 /9
( $( ;
… )( ! κ φ1!
(« $ @! λ $! !.
The relation between these passages was already suggested by Pfeiffer

ad loc. In Callimachus’ the speaker, Molorchus, has just heard the soft
noise caused by the mice in his house (cf. vv. 9–11 ² # Ρ# 3 ) /[7],
| [³« ²*# S ]
« F/# # σ« )φ | [! ]«, [] ξ
Ρ!! $ , _ # 3[<], ‘and when he heard the noise, just as
when a lion-cub roars into the ear of a timid deer, he stopped just long
enough to hear, and said softly’). Just as in h.Herm., where the infant
thief tries to slip into his home at night hoping that he will not be no-
ticed (cf. h.Herm. 149 _ !λ ""· C 1 —« #
Κ), so too in Callimachus another type of thief, the mice, return to
Molorchus’ home at night (cf. vv. 5–6). In both cases the little thieves
are discovered and cause Maia and Molorchus to utter a speech that ex-
presses their indignation. But while Molorchus translates his anger into
action (he prepares mousetraps), Maia only chastises Hermes and
never turns her words into action (cf. h.Herm. 182–83).80 In both texts,
finally, we sense the speaker’s wish that the addressee(s) be gone: cf. [
*|#] σ D # ~ h.Herm. 160 3 ).
5.2.20 [Theocritus] 25, H )

« [φ*«:81
In this poem we catch glimpses of Heracles’ fifth labour, the cleaning of
Augeas’ stables. [Theocr.] 25 has been called a triptych: In the first part
(1–84), an old farmer replies to the hero’s question regarding the lo-
cation of Augeas’ cattle.82 Heracles subsequently encounters Augeas
and his son Phyleus. In the second part (85–152), entitled @)(!«
in one manuscript (D), we survey through the hero’s eyes the vast
numbers of Augeas’ cattle. The cleaning of the stables may have taken
place between parts two and three.83 Part three (153–281) begins with
Heracles and Phyleus walking towards the city, probably after the dis-
80 See Seiler (1997, 93–94).

81 The poem’s title derives from Callierges’ edition. On the problem of attribution, see Gow
(p. 439–41).
82 Heracles is nowhere named in the poem.
83 See G. Zanker (1996, 418–19), who discusses other reconstructions of the poem’s (implied)
action.
120 Introduction
agreement between Heracles and Augeas regarding the hero’s compen-

sation for clearing the stables. Although they had agreed that Heracles
should receive a tenth of the cattle for his work, when Augeas found out
that Heracles had performed this task at the behest of Eurystheus, he
broke the agreement. During the two men’s quarrel Phyleus spoke in fa-
vour of Heracles and had to follow the hero into exile. As they leave,
Heracles narrates his first labour, the killing of the Nemean Lion. The
poem thus exhibits an interesting compositional technique, in which
the main event is not narrated, but the poet gives enough clues for the
audience to reconstruct the action and relies of course on the audience’s
familiarity with the story.
Similar to what we noted above regarding the allusions to h.Herm.
in Callimachus’ Hymns, Hermes is present here indirectly, in a hidden
manner as is appropriate to his stealthy character. It is important that
the allusion to the Hymn to Hermes occurs programmatically, at the be-
ginning of [Theoc.] 25.84 The Old Man in [Theoc. 25] is happy to pro-
vide the answer to Heracles who must have asked about the cattle (just
as Apollo did in the Hymn). It is ironic that the old farmer evokes pre-
cisely Hermes of the crossroads (einodios), the protector of wayfarers,
as the reason for his willingness to provide this information:
3 , <, *φ 7! Ρ!!# «,
E 4&*« κ R ·
μ φ! ! /)!,
F ² &/ $7( « ²(.
Stranger, I will gladly tell you all that you ask, fearing the terrible wrath of Hermes Eino-
dios; for they say that he is angered more than all the gods, if someone refuses to help a
wayfarer in great need ([Theoc.] 25.3–6).
The old farmer mentions a common belief, the wrath of Hermes einodios,
just as the Old Man of Onchestos began his answer with proverbial ex-
pressions (see 201–11n.). But contrary to the Onchestean, the old farmer
of [Theoc.] 25 knows the answer; cf. v. 37–38 @ !φ Ω« |
)# <() and contrast h.Herm. 207 !φξ« # C ρ.
84 See Seiler (1997, 73–75, 93–96), who considers h.Herm. a “privilegierter Referenztext” in
[Theoc.] 25 and detects allusions to it at the opening of the poem, l. 132, and # 1! at
242; on p. 96 n. 241 he suggests that )(@« ‘glaring around’ at [Theoc.] 25.241
may owe something to h.Herm. 278–79. O. Thomas (2009, 305) points out the echoes at
[Theoc.] 25.67 ~ h.Herm. 205, [Theoc.] 25.132 ~ h.Herm. 27, and (tentatively) [Theoc.]
25.242 ~ h.Herm. 152.
The opening of the poem, furthermore, recalls h.Herm. 201 (μ #

² 1! $"*« !); cf. [Theoc.] 25.1–2
μ # ² ! " « $ 1«,85
!« 3 * ¹ / !λ 3 .
The old man, a ploughman who watched over the oxen, addressed him, having interrupted
the task at hand.
That the poet of Idyll 25 had in his mind the exchange between Apollo
and the Old Man of Onchestos is made clear by a further reference to
his speech later in the poem. At [Theoc.] 25.67 we hear the old man’s
thoughts as he leads Heracles to Augeas: he observes his lion-skin and
wishes to ask whence this stranger has come, but he is afraid, for /)-
μ # ' * F $ *« (‘it is difficult to know another
man’s intentions’). With this we may compare h.Herm. 205 /)μ ξ
7 ! Q ! (‘it is difficult to understand each man [pass-
er-by]’, i.e. his thoughts or intentions). The allusion thus in [Theoc.] 25
is an example of Hellenistic oppositio in imitando.
But there is more to it than that. The second line of [Theoc.] 25
alludes to Call. SH 259.15–16, which, as we saw above, itself alludes to
h.Herm. in lines 12–14:
[—]« μ []|ξ 3 , Ρ ¹ [/ ]λ [ ]
[W5], []λ |« μ 3/ *).
Speaking thus he gave up the task at hand because he intended to forge a secret treacherous
trap for the mice.
[Theoc.] 25.1–2 is thus a particular type of window-reference: it alludes

to h.Herm. as well as to a later text (Callimachus SH 259) that itself
alludes to h.Herm. Furthermore, the two sources are inverted: whereas
in h.Herm. the Old Man’s reply to Apollo follows the episode of
Hermes and Maia’s altercation, in [Theoc.] 25 the Old Man’s reply is
hinted at first, and only then are we reminded of Hermes and Maia via
Callimachus. [Theoc.] thus combines two figures in the old man of 25:
the rustic Onchestean, who was working on his vineyard in h.Herm.,
and Molorchus, who may have been a cowherd (cf. SH 259.5–6).
Contrary to the Hymn’s Onchestean, the old man in [Theoc.] 25 per-
ceives that his interlocutor may be divine (cf. vv. 38–41).
85 This line and h.Herm. 201 are the only examples in hexameter verse where a line begins
with μ # ² combined with !.
122 Introduction
Once we realize Hermes’ allusive presence in [Theoc.] 25, it might

be justified to see further references to the archaic Hymn, some perhaps
more persuasive than others:
1. [Theoc.] 25.20 ()!) ( φ1! ~ h.Herm. 125
(W) )/ * φ1!; note that (*« appears twice
in the Hymn (61* and 113).
2. [Theoc.] 25.27 φ! φ ~ h.Herm. 90 τ , Ρ« φ
! «.
3. [Theoc.] 25.32 (1 and $)) ψ« π« 3 ! /*
* _ ~ h.Herm. 206–207 C Ω * _ «
) 1 | 3! λ μ $)
« .
4. [Theoc.] 25.42 :μ« # Ν) « ¹*«* is a clausula used elsewhere of
Heracles, but once of Hermes (101; see n.).
5. [Theoc.] 25.52 ($, <, φ 9
*«) # ¹ «* ~
h.Herm. 191/262 ("« … &7«) # ¹ (¹ «).
Note that it appears from the old man’s reply at [Theoc.] 25.7–34
that Heracles must have asked about the location of the cattle.86
6. [Theoc.] 25.60 Ω π1!* ~ h.Herm. 461–62 _ ξ @
! | μ $! λ R)" π1!.
7. [Theoc.] 25.62 *) # Ρ *))# ~ h.Herm. 62 ξ φ -
!λ Ν)) : in both texts » is localized by means of a
dative (while the Odyssean antecedents for this phrase have *« as
its subject).
8. Although the main subtext for [Theoc.] 25.68–84 is Od. 14.21–38,
and although the ps.-Theocritean dogs consequently notice the
stranger (Heracles), [Theoc.] 25.80 F ¹ (sc. to dogs) λ φ «
o 7« 3 _! could be read as an ironic comment
on h.Herm. 194–95 / λ ξ 1« *! Q |
!! «, 1 φ« ²*φ «.
9. [Theoc.] 25.85–87 #H)« ξ 3 λ &*φ 3 b« |
) _ Ν· # 7)
) | "(«
$* # Κ) !( 1« . ~ h.Herm. 68–71 #H)« ξ
3 /μ« # * | C! # b! λ Ϊ !,
C Ν # E
« | P (« $φ R ! *, | 3
"*« σ) 3/! . Though the beginning of a
86 The clausula # ¹ etc. occurs certainly elsewhere in archaic epic, besides h.Herm.
new section in the text signalled by the setting of the sun is not un-
paralleled, in both texts the sunset is followed by a reference to
cattle and their stabling.
10. [Theoc.] 25.132 ( ) "*! # () (* ~ h.Herm. 27
(/)«) "! ( … () (. This clausula occurs only in
these two poems, and the possibility of a conscious allusion is
higher since it is preceded by forms of "*! !.87
11. At [Theoc.] 25.143 ! *) * H )
is motivated by the context
just as 1! « #A φ*(« at h.Herm. 73 where it follows Θ)
! 7 (65); at [Theoc.] the epithet is motivated by the fact
that Heracles notices the bull’s attack in time; cf. Gow ad loc. Per-
haps the way in which Heracles subdues the bull at vv. 146–48
( # C/ # λ (« | )!! " 1 *, )
τ! S!! | c) " !«, and 152 #Aφ
"( K )) is a distant echo and reworking of Hermes’ drag-
ging the two cows at h.Herm. 117–19 (1« ¹ 3) ))7.
| $φ « # λ /λ ") φ!*!«· | ) # -
1)…)
12. [Theoc.] 25.242 # 19 (! may suggest that h.Herm. 152 was al-
ready analyzed as # 1! (though Il. 13.212 # 1( and
the medical texts that employ 1( may be in the formular back-
ground); on the question of !/1!, see 152n. Seiler (1997, 95)
adds the point that whereas in h.Herm. 152 Hermes is playing with
his blanket in an attempt to avoid Apollo, in [Theoc.] the Nemean
lion is playing with its tail and presents itself ready to attack the
hero.
13. We may finally add a structural similarity: just as Hermes in his
Hymn has to face three challenges of ascending order of difficulty
(Maia, Apollo, Zeus and the Olympians), so too Heracles in
[Theoc.] 25 must face three challenges narrated in ascending order
(dogs, cows/labour, lion).
87 The clausula at [Theoc.] 25.15 )( ( is unique in hexameter poetry and may be
based on () (, used here due to metrical constraints (note at 15). It has an
antecedent in Pi. P. 9.37 ) .
124 Introduction
5.2.11 AP 5.127 (= GP 1355–60, Marcus Argentarius):88

P #A) ( φ) , !«
Cκ ) « ρ/ λ )!9
(·
$φ ξ ! )), 7 « )9 (,
7 « F9
( * !! .
( # C 3) † (« ))†, $))# !! 5
<(« E
« *«# 3φ( 1 ’.
5 )( ))« Huschke; )(« !)« Jacob
I used to love madly the maiden Alcippe, and once I convinced her and had her secretly on
the bed; our chests were beating, fearing lest someone should come in, lest someone should
see our secret loves. But she did not escape her garrulous mother (?); but having seen us,
she suddenly said “Hermes is common, daughter.”
Marcus Argentarius must have been inspired by h.Herm. in this epi-

gram. Besides the verse-beginning ( # C 3) that is remi-
niscent of h.Herm. 154 ( # C Ν # 3)( (the only two instances
where this phrase occurs), Argentarius describes a love-affair whose
protagonists attempt to keep secret (l. 2 ) «, l. 4 ; cf. also
Hermes’ attempt to enter his cave so that no one notices him, and
Hermes’ own conception, h.Herm. 1–9). But both Hermes and Alcippe
are noticed by their mothers. Significantly, the epigram’s pointe involves
Hermes in his capacity as the god of the lucky find, one of Hermes’
roles celebrated towards the beginning h.Herm. In this case, the mother
is asking her daughter to share the ‘lucky find,’ i.e. Alcippe’s lover (the
narrator). But given that “Hermes” can also stand for the ithyphallic
herm, the mother’s request might be even more “pointed.”
88 See Hendry (1991).

Structure and Arrangement 125
6. Structure and Arrangement
It remains now to examine how the mythological material (cattle-theft

and the invention of the lyre) is arranged in h.Herm. At first it may seem
illogical that the lyre is constructed before the slaughtering of the cows,
when hide and intestines were necessary for fabricating the instrument.
Closer examination reveals that the poem’s mythological material is or-
ganized according to the principle of ring-composition:1
1–19 Proem
A 20–64a Lyre
B 64b–141 Cattle
C 142–396 Hermes’ rhetoric
B’ 397–414a Cattle
A’ 414b–502 Lyre
503–80 ‘Coda’
Besides this main structural framework we can identify other rings and
sets of meaningful repetitions, which serve to highlight particular sec-
tions of the poem and link the individual parts identified above. Thus:
1. ) :μ« *« <) (10) ~ W(« 3 :μ« *«
*/ (396). The will of Zeus appears at crucial points: Hermes’
birth and his admittance in the Olympian order.
2. ¹ ) … $U<« &7 "*« (21–22) ~ ¹ )
λ ) ) λ ) )
…
& … Θ) (63–65): Lines 63–65 repeat the thought
and part of the phrasing of 21–22. It will be remembered that im-
mediately after 21–22 Hermes chances upon the tortoise, which
makes him momentarily forget his desire to steal Apollo’s cattle.
1 The arrangement of the mythological material in ring-compositional fashion in h.Herm.

was detected already by Radermacher 215; see now Calame (2011, 348–49). Niles (1979) ar-
gues for a ring arrangement in the Hymn to Delian Apollo; on ring-composition in general,
see Niles (1979, 37 n. 4), Thalmann (1984, 8–21, 70–73), Nimis (1999), and Douglas (2007).
For the structural functions of repetition (with emphasis on h.Aphr.), see Porter (1949).
126 Introduction
With this mini-ring, the narrative returns to the point where it

began and leads into the cattle-theft.
3. E
« @! /) 7# $* (25) ~ E
«
@! 7 # $ (111): these aetiological verses
precede Hermes’ two most important inventions in the poem, the
lyre and the fire-sticks (which enable him to cook the meat for his
feast). Since the description of both inventions is riddling or ellipti-
cal, these two verses are necessary.
4. φ μ Ν (40b, 52b); this clausula frames the de-
scription of the lyre’s construction; note that Ν is the tortoise
in 40, but the lyre at 52.
5. ! ) "(! (54a, 420a, 502a), a ‘misapplied’ phrase
that links A with A’ (on the lyre). This link is rather elaborate: 54 ~
502 ! ) "(!, μ« # Kμ )μ Ν (Ν! 502)
marks the first performance to the lyre by Hermes and Apollo re-
spectively. On the other hand, ! ) "(! of 420 and
502 marks the beginning and the ending of A’.
6. There is some similarity in sound at 1 | π"( (55–56) ~
s φ« | φ)
(66–67), where Hermes is compared to cha-
racters older that himself; but cf. his words to his mother where he
protests at her treatment of him 1 | 7 (with similar
enjambement).
7. μ * « !φ( M(« « ¹*« (89) ~ μ
* « !φ( [(« « ¹*« (189): these verses in-
troduce the gods’ address to the Old Man at Onchestos and draw
our attention to the different effect and circumstances of each ad-
dress. Hermes speaks to him in riddling terms that leave him lite-
rally speechless; Apollo approaches him in need, even though he is
the omniscient god of prophecy.
8. -< Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) (215, 227). These verses frame
Apollo’s expression of wonderment at the strange tracks of Hermes
and the backwards walking cattle.
9. :μ« )) (323b, 396b, 504b), a clausula found only
in this poem, links the two gods’ arrival on Olympus, their journey
to Pylos where they retrieve the cows, and their return on Olympus
where they enjoy the music from the lyre, bound by the ties of
φ)*(«.
10. /μ ) * (246) ~ /L« ) * (252);
these verses frame the catalogue of everything that is stored in

Maia’s cave, which is likened to a temple.
11. 302–3 K 7! λ 3 " Fφ ( | « !·
!L # σ# ²μ π1!« (302–303) ~ … E
ξ
π1, λ < … | Ρ9 ( σ# $ 5 " Fφ
( (392–94) ~ « φ« <7) " Fφ ( (402).
Line 402 represents the realization of Hermes’ omens at 296–97, on
the basis of which Apollo makes his prediction at 302–303; lines
392–94, reporting Zeus’s words, give these “omens” the authority of
Zeus’s will (cf. 396).2 On the humour of this scene, see p. 36.
12. λ ) * (386) ~ λ * * (418) is
again an instance of meaningful repetition: at 386 Hermes
‘threatens’ to pay Apollo back for his search; at 418 he does pay him
back indeed, through his music and the lyre.
13. μ & (425) ~ )« & (433): these frame
Hermes’ theogonic song and set it apart from the rest of the narrative.
14. !λ # C 7 Ρ ) »« (474, 489): these lines
frame Hermes’ instructions to Apollo on how to use the lyre. Again
this account is presented as a distinct unit within the overall narrative.
We cannot fail to notice the incongruity in these words, as they are
directed by a one-day-old infant to the omniscient god of prophecy.
15. / ( # Ν ( Z1«, | Νφ # « φ)*( !7. λ
ξ E
« | [(U( φ)(! « (506–508) ~ 8
M« ¹μ φ)(! #A*)) | ( φ)*(, / #
( K (574–75). This set of repetitions holds the final
part of the Hymn (exchange of mutual oaths and discussion of
prophecy) together. This final section is linked to the previous part
by means of another set of repetitions, between Hermes’ instruc-
tions on how to use the lyre and Apollo’s description of the oracle’s
operation (on this, see above, p. 17–18).
Verbal and/or thematic repetitions link the various parts of the Hymn.
Hermes’ first song (54–61) repeats points made by the poet in the
proem to the Hymn (1–8), thus forming yet another ring.3 The killing of
the tortoise and the construction of the lyre (39–49) and the killing of

3 On the similarities between the proem and Hermes’ first song, see above, p. 10–11.
128 Introduction
the two cows (116–28) share some verbal material.4 The last part
(503–80) takes up the theme of prophecy, hinted at in the proem
(cf. 10n.); it also confirms Hermes’ acquisition of certain attributes that
were mentioned in the proem. C, the central part of the Hymn (Apollo’s
search for the animals and Hermes’ display of rhetoric to Maia, Apollo,
and Zeus), acquires special prominence by virtue of its position at
the center of the ring. This part too is integrated in the narrative fabric
since it foreshadows Apollo’s attempt to bind Hermes at 409–14 (cf.
Maia’s words at 157–58), while it features the Old Man at Onchestos
whom we encounter at 89–93. It also presents Apollo repeating
Hermes’ journey at 64–141 (B), i.e. from Pieria to Boeotia, Pylos, and
finally to Cyllene and Maia’s cave.5 All in all, while the story follows a
linear trend, i.e. Hermes’ ascent from his cave in Cyllene to Olympus
(A to A’), it presents this journey also in a circular way, and the con-
struction of the narrative proves to be highly sophisticated. Ring com-
position characterizes the narrative, perhaps mirroring the circularity
of the /)« itself.
We may present these finds schematically as follows:
4 See Croci (1977–78, 178) and below, p. 326 (vii).

5 Douglas (2007, 34, 37) emphasizes that the middle section should have links to the rest of
the narrative; this happens here only partially: while C is connected with B and B’ as is ar-
gued above, there is no reference to A or A’ apart from a brief mention of the lyre at 242.
(Proem) 1–19
1–8 parentage, !! , … 3/
10 ) :μ« *« <)
A 20–64a
21–22 ¹ )
λ ) )
…
$U<« &7 "*« #A*))«
25 E
« @! /) 7# $*
40 φ μ Ν
52 φ μ Ν
54 ! ) "(!, μ« # Kμ )μ Ν
55–56 1 π"(
57–58 parentage, % &! ' 9
( φ)*(
63–65 ¹ )
λ ) )
…
& | Θ)
B 64b–141
66–67 s φ« φ)(
89 μ * « !φ( M(« « ¹*«

111 E
« @! 7 # $
C 142–396
189 μ * « !φ( [(« « ¹*«
215 -< Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*))
227 -< Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*))

246 /μ ) *
252 /L« ) *

302–303 " Fφ ( / π1!«
323 :μ« ))
386 λ ) *
396 W(« 3 :μ« *« */
B’ 397–414a
392–4 π1 / " Fφ (
397 :μ« ))
A’ 414b–502
418 λ * *
420 ! ) "(!, )!! ξ d"« #A*))
474 !λ # C * ! 7 Ρ )

»«
489 !λ # C * ! 7 Ρ )

»«
502 ! ) "(!, μ« # Kμ )μ Ν!
Coda 503–80
506–508 φ)*(«, / «
507 :μ« ))
574–75 φ)*(«, / «
130 Introduction
7. Date and Place of Composition
One of the thorniest problems in the scholarship on h.Herm. is estab-

lishing when and where it was composed, two questions that are often
treated simultaneously. The poem is generally considered to be the most
recent of the longer Homeric Hymns. The communis opinio has been
restated by M. L. West in the introduction to his 2003 Loeb edition of
the Hymns: noting that Alcaeus’ Hymn to Hermes must have exhibited
similarities with h.Herm., West goes on to suggest that “to date our
Hymn as early as 600 is implausible: it contains too many words and ex-
pressions that are not paralleled before the fifth century. The likelihood
is that it is a later descendant of the hymn that Alcaeus knew.”1
The Hymn does not contain any datable events. Thus scholars have
attempted to establish the poem’s date and place of composition by re-
sorting to arguments concerning linguistic innovation, the reference to
the seven-stringed lyre, the importance of Delphi in the poem, the ideas
about rhetoric and poetry presented in the Hymn, or a combination of
these. In their quest for an absolute date, scholars have also sought pa-
rallels in cult practice or (even less successfully) allusions to specific so-
cial and political issues that the conflict between Hermes and Apollo is
thought to represent. In what follows I will review the most important
arguments used to establish the poem’s date and then present my own
views for a date toward the end of the 6th century BC, largely based on
archaeological material (section 7.1.7). I have opted for the doxo-
graphic presentation in order to show more clearly the extent to which
some of the theories advanced have been influenced by presuppositions
stemming from previous treatments of the question, as well as the pro-
blems involved in them.
1 West (2003a, 14). On the same page, n. 16, West cites Görgemanns (1976) for further ar-
guments in favour of a fifth century dating of h.Herm.; on Görgemanns’ arguments, see
below, p. 138–42.
Date and Place of Composition 131
7.1 Date of Composition
7.1.1 J. H. Voss, Mythologische Briefe:

The use of arguments based on perceived linguistic and cultural inno-
vations has a long history. The first to advocate forcefully a low date on
such grounds was J. H. Voss in his Mythologische Briefe, who argued that
Cynaethus (late sixth century) had composed h.Herm. Voss supported
his thesis with arguments resting on both language and realia.2 The first
group of arguments, presented in the 17th epistle, rests on the following
“innovations”: (i) the ‘winged Moirai’ of 552;3 (ii) Selene’s genealogy
(daughter of Pallas, son of Megamedes);4 (iii) Hermes’ burning the cows
C)*# C) ( (137), which does not have any parallel in
Homeric or Hesiodic sacrificial practice; (iv) the mention of the Cen-
taurs, who at 224–25 have shaggy necks, while their footprints (being dif-
ferent from those created by humans) suggest that they must be half-
equine creatures. This in Voss’s view runs contrary to Homeric usage
where the Centaurs are represented as wild, hairy mountain-people;5 and
(v) the staff Hermes receives from Apollo at 526. But here Voss confuses
the staff with which Hermes sends humans to sleep,6 with that mentioned
at Eust. Il. IV 914–15 (p. 1353), where it has additional functions,7 and
2 Voss (1827, 104–18) = Mythologische Briefe 16–18, written in 1794.

3 M is the reading of ; see 552n.
4 This may be the poet’s ad hoc invention; see n. ad loc.
5 This is not entirely accurate. Although Homer nowhere states explicitly that the Centaurs
were half-human and half-equine, at Il. 1.268 the Centaurs are designated as ‘mountain
dwelling beasts’ (φ( !λ S ! ) @!). From Od. 21.295 (< i K1 ! λ $ !
« 1/() it is evident that the Centaurs are not treated as ordinary humans. Cf.
224–25n.
6 Cf. Il. 24.343 and Od. 24.2–4.
7 π ξ ! λ ( W"« « ξ * ! ) E 9
μ«
#A*))«, 9 x « "« #A7 « " *), $!
« /)« -
)1 «, p Kφ# E 3)", Ν))« ξ ³« s !
μ )* () "-
!) * Ϊ λ K ! *. 8 ξ λ (* !« !*&, λ )*«
() λ σ« $ o, χ« λ )1 i κ ()! λ *) ! …
(‘but the large staff that has contrasting abilities is, according to myth, Apollo’s gift to
Hermes with which he had tended Admetus’ cows; it was given in exchange for the chelys,
i.e. the lyre, which he [sc. Apollo] received from Hermes. Otherwise, just like a scepter, it de-
notes the royal and supporting qualities of logos. And he presides over sleep and wakeful-
ness since logos, who invented furthermore the lyre that bewitches and stirs war, bewitches
and excites again …’)
132 Introduction
Zeus’s sceptre given to Pelops at Il. 2.100–105. But Hermes’ staff may
help us establish an approximate terminus. I shall return to this below.
Voss’s linguistic arguments involve the following words: (i) <«
(454) in the sense ‘clever’8; (ii) )1 « (439) meaning ‘cunning’;9
(iii) *« ²* instead of ² at 86;10 (iv) K" /« (116)
meaning ‘lowing’ instead of ‘submerged’;11 (v) 7 (135) meaning
‘altars’;12 (vi) φ7 (136) meaning ‘slaughter’;13 (vii) ")1
(167) ‘advising myself’ instead of ;14 (viii) @) (187) mean-
ing ‘with a wild appearance’;15 (ix) 1!« (336) meaning ‘manifest
or completely’;16 (x) " ) (348) ‘complete the journey,’
whereas " should mean ‘delay’;17 (xi) (427) meaning
‘praising’ instead of ‘completing’.18 In addition, !) [sic] "
(28) and R « (98) appear first in Anacreon and Ibycus respectively;
S !)1« (308) is also thought to be late; C)( ‘rumour’ (325)
and Ρ (383) are unique, while « (481) occurs first
in the pseudo-Hesiodic Scutum.
But it is in !) at 79 that Voss saw the most conclusive argu-
ment for a late date. He devoted to this word an entire epistle (no. 18)
in which he suggested that the Hymn must have been composed
not very long before the poets of Old Comedy where the word originally
denoted both men’s and women’s footwear; later it was restricted to
women’s shoes as Pollux transmits.19
8 The meaning ‘clever’ is attested for <«; cf. 454n.

9 But see 12n.
10 Homer has ! with the genitive ‘eager for’; the accusative is found at Od. 2.97
(= 19.142, 24.132) and is glossed ‘urged on, press for the carrying out of what one desires’;
cf. LfgrE, s.v. 2a. The sense at 86 is ‘hastening to accomplish.’
11 But see 116n.
12 The sense ‘altars’ is wrong; see 135n.
13 But see 136n.
14 But " ) is read there; see 167n.
15 But this is corrupt; see 187n.
16 This is an extension of its proper meaning; see 336n.
17 In view of Hermes’ strange sandals, one is justified in thinking that a literal understanding
of - " is intended; see 348n.
18 ‘Praising’ is the sense given by some ancient sources; see 427n. for a fuller account.
19 Voss (1827, 118), where he cites Poll. 7.86–87 who, though citing many examples from Co-
medy, does not suggest anything as to the origin of the word !). Voss’s claim is
both far-fetched and misses the point of the passage: Hermes is certainly not wearing any
Matthiae (p. 58–66) took issue with Voss’s arguments. He discarded

some of Voss’s linguistic objections on the grounds that they appeared
in verses which he considered spurious or corrupt, and dated the poem
between Alcaeus’ floruit (which he placed in the 45th Olympiad, at 596)
and the beginnings of Old Comedy (which he dated to the 54th Olym-
piad, i.e. 560/557). His argument too is based on content and linguistic
use: the Hermes poet seems to know the story of Hermes’ stealing
Apollo’s quiver (cf. 515), presumably told by Alcaeus, and presents
Hermes as an infant, an innovative move of Alcaeus’ who thus de-
parted from the story as told in the Great Ehoiai.20
Hermann considered h.Herm. the youngest of the Homeric Hymns
on the evidence of metre (neglect of digamma even in cases of borrow-
ing from earlier epic and introduction of unparalleled cases of hiatus).21
Greve (1867) produced word-lists documenting the divergences from
Homeric diction and proposed a lower dating on account of the poem’s
unusual diction.22 No account is taken of the poet’s provenance, style,
tradition, idiosyncrasies, or even competence. It is only relatively re-
cently that Janko (1982, 136) suggested that the Hymn’s unusual nar-
rative style and vocabulary may be related to its comic tone and its
more relaxed attitude towards the subject matter.23
7.1.2 The Seven-stringed Lyre

The seven-stringed lyre has often been used as an argument for establish-
ing a terminus post quem for the Hymn. At 51 we are told that Hermes at-
tached seven strings to the lyre. Baumeister noted: “tum nullo modo hic
poeta Mercurio septem chordas attribuere potuit, antequam res in usum
sandals and the word (probably denoting luxurious footwear) is used with a touch of irony.
See also 79n.
20 But this is of doubtful cogency: we cannot know whether one poet took the story from the
other or both drew on a common source.
21 See Hermann (1805, 689), who does not however give any concrete evidence.
22 Cf. Greve (1867, 90): “nam in singulis vocibus tanta cernitur cum poëtis scenicis simili-
tudo, ut carmen non multo ante rei scenicae Graecorum originem compositum esse pos-
sit.” This is based on the fallacious notion that certain words must first occur near the time
of the dramatic poets whom (contrary to the hymnic poets) we can date more or less safely.
Burckhardt (1868, 737) agreed with Hermann and Greve’s dating.
23 See also Hoekstra (1969, 19 n. 44), Richardson (2007, 85), and idem (2010, 23–24).
134 Introduction
quotidianum esset recepta vetusque illa / « memoria homi-

num plane cessisset. Quamobrem meo iure ex hoc versu videor colligere,
hunc hymnum compositum esse non posse ante olym. 40 [= 616/5]”.24
The seven-stringed lyre has been traditionally associated with Ter-
pander.25 The only value this may have is as a very broad terminus post
quem at best: i.e. sometime during or after the 7th c. BC. As far as we can
judge from the testimonia, Terpander’s role in the history of the seven-
stringed lyre seems to have been that he promoted its use rather than in-
venting it.26 The seven-stringed lyre must have been known in Asia
Minor. In fact, representations of such lyres have been found in Old
Smyrna and Çandarlı (Pitane) dating from the second quarter of the 7th
c. BC; and there are representations of seven-stringed instruments of
the lyre type that are even older than that.27
Ancient thought tended to attribute various inventions in the same
field to a single prominent figure. In addition to the invention (or re-in-
troduction) of the seven-stringed lyre, Terpander was credited with the
invention of the barbitos, the modification of the lyre’s tuning, the na-
ming of the citharodic nomes (seven in number),28 and the division of
the nomes in (again) seven parts. It appears that a good number of Ter-
pander’s assumed innovations involve the number seven, and this co-
24 Baumeister 195. The same argument appears in Gemoll 193, who disagrees on metrical and
linguistic grounds with Müller’s dating the Hymn to the 30th Olympiad (656) also on the
basis of the seven-stringed lyre; cf. Müller (1841, I 126): the same argument led these two
scholars to propose a different date for the poem. The seven-stringed lyre is also cited by
Humbert and AS/AHS. The latter date h.Herm. to the 7th c. BC on the basis of Str. 8.3.30
(p. 355 C.) and Hdt. 4.148.4 from which they conclude that Triphylian Pylos must have al-
ready been forgotten at the time of the Hymn’s composition; see AHS 275–76.
25 The testimonia on Terpander are collected in Gostoli (1990). Terpander’s dates are far
from certain; Gostoli (1990, ix–xi) sides with Hellanicus’ dating, who placed Terpander’s
floruit during the reign of Midas (between 741 and 696 BC).
26 For Terpander’s association with the seven-stringed lyre, see Gostoli (1990, xxxix–xli) and
test. 47, 48, 50, 53a–b (with her commentary).
27 See Aign (1963) p. 44–45 (II/11: Agia Triada, Crete, ca. 1400 BC); p. 64–65 (III/6": Idalion,
Cyprus, ca. 800–700 BC); p. 77 (IV/4: Old Smyrna, first quarter of 7th c. BC); p. 99 (V/19:
Delos, mid 7th c. BC); p. 100–101 (V/20: Melos, ca. 645 BC); p. 102–103 (V/23; Athens,
625–600 BC); p. 233 (V/26, 700–635 BC). Further Huxley (1970), Gostoli (1990, xl with n.
155), and Maas and Snyder (1989, 42–43) fig. 2–3b for depictions of seven-stringed lyres
from Melos, Athens, and Syracuse dating in the 7th c. For representations of chelys-type
lyres from the seventh century, see Dumoulin (1992, 98), who supports a 7th century date
for the poem.
28 Gostoli (1990) test. 28.
incidence should lead us to be at least cautious in using the seven-

stringed lyre (and consequently Terpander) to establish a terminus post
quem.29 This is not to argue, of course, that the Hymn might have been
composed at a much earlier date; but an argument based on the seven-
stringed lyre is unsafe.
7.1.3 Delphi
The argument based on the seven-stringed lyre was accepted by Jean
Humbert who, taking into account the Hymn’s references to the wealth
of Delphi at 178–81, proposed to date the poem to the last third of the
6th c. BC.30 He remarks: “Il est probable que la somptueuse générosité
des princes lydiens a beaucoup contribué à cette prospérité: la Grèce
deut être éblouie, comme Hérodote lui-même, par la magnificence des
offrandes de Crésus.”
The date Humbert proposes would conform with the Delphic pre-
eminence in the area,31 while it would allow enough time (more than a
century and a half) from the re-introduction of the seven-stringed lyre
for it to become common. This argument too is not entirely compelling:
Hermes’ words at 178–81 cannot be taken as a reference to Croesus’
dedications. Apollo’s temple is described as a *« containing objects
that Hermes already possesses. No reference is found to the splendid
treasure houses at Delphi or to any specific dedication that one could
plausibly link with Croesus. In fact, everything Hermes covets is already
located in his dwelling: tripods and cauldrons are mentioned in Hermes’
hymn to himself (61), while gold, silver, and splendid clothes are in store
in Maia’s cave (249–51). Hermes thus describes Apollo’s temple in terms
reminiscent of his own dwelling (perhaps because this is the only dwell-
29 Cf. the skepticism regarding Terpander’s role as the inventor of the lyre expressed in Du-
moulin (1992, 100).
30 Humbert (1937, 114–15).
31 In other words, the Hymn was composed more than fifty years after the First Sacred War.
The idea of a link with the First Sacred War was first mentioned, as far as I know, by
Schmid-Stählin (1934, I 238), who concluded that the poem was composed around 590 BC.
Leduc (2001, 23–24), who points out that the rich dedications at Delphi appear already
around 800 BC, also uses the First Sacred War as a terminus post quem; her terminus ante
quem is 548 when the great temple of Apollo was destroyed. Note however that doubts
have been expressed as to whether the First Sacred War actually occurred; see Robertson
(1978), contra Lehmann (1980), Fowler (1988–89, 13 n. 30).
136 Introduction
ing he knows thus far or because all divine dwellings and temples are ex-
pected to contain such wealth?), and any argument based on Delphi’s
wealth (which was proverbial already at Il. 9.404–405) is not cogent.
7.1.4 Allusions to Social or Political Issues

A different line of reasoning attempts to date the Hymn on the basis of
what are thought to be allusions to contemporary political, social, or
religious affairs. Such arguments are rather weak and generally rely on
over-interpretation of particular details while ignoring other parts of
the poem. To this category belongs N. O. Brown’s attempt to date the
poem.32
Brown believes that the Hymn’s author and audience belonged to
the urban and commercial class that rose during the archaic age and
saw Hermes as its patron deity. In his attempt to propose as precise a
date as possible, he focused on Hermes’ “sacrifice” at the Alpheios
which, in Brown’s view, alludes to the cult of the Twelve Gods in Athens,
on the grounds that the Athenian agora was the only place where the
Twelve Gods and Hermes were worshipped together in archaic times.33
The altar of the Twelve Gods was erected sometime between 520
and 511 BC,34 and Brown proposes that the Hymn must have been
composed at 520/19 BC for two reasons: (i) Hermes conducts an altar-
less sacrifice; and (ii) the poet mentions Onchestos, which Brown takes
to reflect political considerations of the time: Hipparchus had forged an
alliance with Boeotia, which ended at 519.35
32 See Brown (1947, esp. 106–37) for the Hymn’s date and place of composition. I do not wish
to give a thorough criticism of all points made by Brown, as many are not relevant for my
purposes. The interested reader may consult Rose (1948) and Fontenrose (1949). Kurke
(2010, 60 n. 25) speaks of “crude sociologizing.” See also McInerney (2010, 143–44).
33 In formulating this theory, Brown ignores other events in the Hymn. A telling example is
the cattle-theft episode, which he thinks does not contribute anything to the development
of the plot; Brown (1947, 108).
34 These are the dates adduced by Brown; but see Rutherford (2010, 43), citing Thuc.
6.54.6–7 (522 BC).
35 Brown’s thesis was recently revived by Johnston and Mulroy (2009). They added the fol-
lowing in favour of the Hymn’s Athenian composition: (i) the reference to the chisel
()1φ) at 42, whose use is implied in their view also at 119 (where Hermes kills the
two cows), and at 178 and 283 (where Hermes’ breaking into buildings by drilling holes to
the wall, $ , is mentioned). This reference is meant to hint at the herm-carvers, the
However, as Polyxeni Strolonga shows in her forthcoming study on

reciprocity in the major Homeric Hymns, the progression from strife
and negative reciprocity (i.e. the attempt to obtain something without
giving anything in exchange) to reconciliation characterized by a quid
pro quo (i.e. balanced) reciprocity is a characteristic of all these Hymns.36
Therefore, a reading that attempts to find allusions to specific historical
events or social conflicts misses an important generic characteristic of
the Hymns in addition to ignoring their Pan-Hellenic tendency.37 Fur-
thermore, if the Hymn meant to allude to the cult of the Twelve Gods in
Athens, why does the poet localize Hermes’ ‘ritual’ at the ford of Al-
pheios? And, more important, why is Athens so conspicuously absent
from the Hymn, when Pylos is mentioned four times?38 Besides, the
Hymn does not refer to two separate cults, i.e. that of the Twelve Gods
and that of Hermes; it rather presupposes that Hermes is one of the
Twelve, who are thus an incomplete group before Hermes’ introduction
into the Olympian pantheon; the ‘ritual’ at the Alpheios would be
pointless otherwise. At any rate, the Hymn is not a document of, or al-
legory on, contemporary history, but a witty poem, and an analysis
such as Brown’s does not do justice to the Hymn’s humorous character.
' )φ« (sic), who earned their livelihood from their )1φ. (ii) The mention of
Pylos, whence the Peisistratids claimed their descent. And (iii) the reference to the ford of
the Alpheios river, which reflects the point at which one crossed the Eridanos river at the
entrance to the Athenian agora, where there must have been a ford or a bridge. But (i) it is
not certain that the )1φ is the tool with which Hermes will drill holes in the walls of
the houses he wishes to break in (178, 283). This is an over-literal reading of a poem whose
hero returns to his cave in the manner described at 145–49. (ii) Pylos was known as the
locus of cattle-theft stories and this is the reason it was included in the poem (see below,
p. 316); to assume that the Peisistratids promoted their propaganda through a story that
features a perjurious infant thief who acts as is described in v. 296 is odd. The ‘Epos of
Pylos’ was already known in Athens during the 8th century, and more than one Athenian
family claimed to descend from the Neleids (i.e. the Paeonids, Alcmaeonids, Medontids,
and Peisistratids; cf. Hellanic. FGrH 4 F 125, Hdt. 5.65.10, Paus. 2.18.8–9, 7.2.1). A refer-
ence to Pylos would draw attention not to the Peisistratids alone, but also to these other
families. See Vetta (2003, 25, 29–30). (iii) The reference to the ford of Eridanos in the vi-
cinity of the Athenian agora is too topical for a Pan-Hellenic poem.
36 See Strolonga (forthcoming) introduction and ch. 4.
37 This does not mean, of course, that a literary work cannot be interpreted by a subsequent
audience in accordance to contemporary issues or concerns, in a way that was not foreseen
by its composer, even if what is being re-interpreted is an element related to the work’s gen-
eric affiliation. But this is a different issue.
38 Lines 216, 342, 355, 398; Larson (2005, 11 with n. 36).
138 Introduction
7.1.5 The Argument from Rhetoric and Music

Herwig Görgemanns took a different approach to dating the Hymn,
drawing on what he perceived to be innovations in the ideas expressed
in the poem rather than in its language. His argument rests on Hermes’
use of rhetoric (in particular, the argument from probability) and the
ideas on song and music. Despite the many valuable observations on
both rhetoric and music in h.Herm., objections can be raised against
this proposal as well.39
To begin with, Görgemanns puts special emphasis on the argument
μ *« in Hermes’ defence speeches to Apollo and Zeus (265
and 377). Especially associated with Corax and Teisias, its employment
in Hermes’ defence speech to Apollo indicates in Görgemann’s view the
poet’s reflection on the effect of such an argument.40 From this he de-
duces that Hermes’ rhetoric belongs to a phase in the history of oratory
just before Corax and Teisias.41
The other component of Görgemanns’ argument from rhetoric fo-
cuses on Hermes’ defence speech to Zeus (366–86) which can be viewed
as a miniature oration.42 This speech concludes with Hermes’ attempt
to elicit Zeus’s pity and a threat to take revenge on Apollo in the future,
motifs typically found in epilogues – another innovation of sophistic
rhetoric.43 Görgemanns links Hermes’ rhetoric to the Sophists and,
more specifically, to the oratory practiced in the Athenian courts from
the beginning of the 5th c. BC.44
39 It should be noted at the outset that Görgemanns approaches h.Herm. as a poem of lower
literary worth: on p. 113 it is implied that h.Herm. is a “Werk geringeren Ranges.”
40 Görgemanns (1976, 116), referring to h.Herm. 269–72.
41 Görgemanns (1976, 116 n. 7): “One has the impression that Hermes’ speech belongs to a
phase in the history of oratory shortly before Corax and Teisias” (emphasis mine): on what
basis should we decide that Hermes’ speech precedes rather than follows Corax and Teisias?
42 See 368–86n.
43 Here Görgemanns refers to van Groningen (1958, 246). Note that Odysseus asks Achilles
to pity the Achaeans at the end of his speech at Il. 9.301–302. Priam, too, invokes pity at
the end of his speech to Achilles at Il. 24.503–506.
44 Görgemanns takes this to be a terminus post quem for the Hymn’s composition. His as-
sumption is that an established judicial process is the essential precondition for the devel-
opment of such oratory (p. 119). He discards the Areopagus as a possible context for prac-
ticing such oratory and instead proposes the Athenian jury courts after the Cleisthenic
reform.
Görgemanns’s argument concerning the Hymn’s ideas on poetry

and music also has two parts. First, while the overall effect of Hermes’
lyre playing on Apollo (W )’ 7 E ("*)) recalls what
Hesiod says about the bard’s power in the Theogony (87ff.), Görge-
manns considers the Hymn’s particular emphasis on 3 «-related vo-
cabulary in describing the effects of music on the listener as innovative.
Second, in 482–88 Hermes describes music as something that can be
learned through practice. Görgemanns sees here a comparison of two
musical styles: the style of a person who possesses !φ and /(
(consequently, the lyre responds to him pleasingly) and the style of the
person who is
« (and consequently receives ill-sounding responses).
Görgemanns suggests that the style of the “Nichtkönner” is not merely
a stage in learning that one ought to pass quickly, but a specific musical
style to which Hermes contrasts his own expert music-making (p. 126).
This “bad” style, Görgemanns contends, shows some affinity with Pin-
dar’s (p. 127): a characteristic of the
«-style is that it yields sounds
that are called 7 , which might remind us of the high-flown
poetic style for which Pindar sometimes apologizes. From this Görge-
manns concludes that both Pindar and the poet of h.Herm. were en-
gaged in a discussion on the aesthetic principles of music around
470–60 BC.
Görgemanns thus dates the Hymn to the second quarter of the 5th c.
BC. But a number of objections to this argument could be raised. The
fact that Hermes delivers what appears to be a rhetorically organized
speech cannot be deemed an innovation. The importance of persuasive
speaking is already evident in Homer. At Il. 9.443 we learn that Peleus
had instructed his son Achilles 1 W(
# 3 (

3 (‘to be both a speaker of words and a doer of deeds’). Although
rhetoric was systematized much later, to be sure, the Homeric poems
contain speeches that are rhetorically organized.45 Nestor’s speeches
are deliberately styled and can be analyzed in terms of “professional”
45 Timmerman and Schiappa (2010, esp. 137–70) distinguish between implicit and explicit
rhetorical theory and argue that the canonical division of the rhetorical speech does not
become crystallised until the fourth century. Speeches from the fifth century do not uni-
formly follow this division, and their arrangement can be best accounted for as a variation
on existing patterns of “performed speech,” such as ring composition. If this is so, it can-
not be argued that Hermes’ oratory in the Hymn depends on any (sophistic) rhetorical the-
ory.
140 Introduction
or “codified” rhetoric.46 The same is true for Odysseus’ speech during

the Embassy to Achilles (Il. 9.225–306).47
The argument from probability cannot help us in dating the poem
either. Such an argument does not presuppose the existence of systema-
tized rhetorical training; anyone with common sense could formulate
such an argument, as Görgemanns himself points out. Under the cir-
cumstances, Hermes could only defend himself with an argument
μ *«, both because of his status as an infant and because of the
argument’s potential for comic effect in the Hymn. Significantly, M.
Gagarin argues that Corax and Teisias may not have been the inventors
of the argument from probability; rather, their innovation lay in the
creation of what Gagarin calls the “reverse probability” argument, i.e.
an argument aiming to counter the regular argument from probabi-
lity.48 If this is so, then the argument from probability must have existed
before Corax and Teisias. Hence these two great exponents of the rhe-
torical art are of no great help in determining the poem’s date.
Görgemanns’ interpretation of the Hymn’s views concerning poetry
and music is also not without problems. The presumed criticism against
Pindar’s high-flown style requires us to presume that no other poet
before Pindar had used such a style. The 3 «-related vocabulary that
describes the effects of Hermes’ music on Apollo (by no means an
innovation, cf. 418–53n.) is in keeping with the presentation of the che-
lys as the μ« ' (, which is understood in two ways, as a ‘lyre’
and a ‘courtesan’ (cf. 463–95n.).49 Görgemanns posits the existence of
46 On Nestor as a speaker in the Iliad, see Toohey (1994, 153–62), who shows that all of the
old king’s speeches have a clear structure that contains the following parts: exordium,
prothesis, pistis, prothesis (diegesis), epilogue. Notice that three out of four speeches end
with an epilogue containing an apostrophe (Il. 1.275–84, 7.159–60, 11.793–803), just like
Hermes’ defence speech to Zeus (386). Furthermore, Nestor leads into the epilogue of his
first speech with an appeal to Agamemnon and Achilles to be persuaded by his rhetoric
(Il. 1.274 $)) ! λ Κ«, λ ! Ν); likewise, the epilogue of
Hermes’ speech to Zeus is preceded by (378).
47 See the analysis in Kennedy (1980, 11–13). Clay (2006) points out that Hesiod was the first
to place the power of persuasion under divine patronage; she furthermore proposes that
the Theogony and the Works and Days are a specimen of epideictic and forensic/deliber-
ative oratory respectively.
48 See Gagarin (1994, 50–51). For the argument from probability examined from the perspec-
tive of the history of rhetoric, see Schiappa (1999, 35–37). See also Schmitz (2000, 47–51).
49 The idea that the lyre is ‘the companion of the feast’ is already present in Od. 17.270–71
φ* < | 1 p Ν λ λ (! ' ( (‘and in there resounds the phor-
an innovative trait in that 3 « is understood not as a concrete desire

(e.g. to obtain the lyre), but as a general “Gestimmtheit” (mood) caused
by the music of the lyre, whose effects could not be adequately de-
scribed by any longer. But since the lyre is presented in anthro-
pomorphic terms as a courtesan, 3 « cannot be merely the expression
of a certain mood. And more important, the song’s effect is not simply
3 «, but something stronger, viz. )<«. By this term is meant “the
listener’s unconsciousness of himself and his present situation … By
giving pleasure, enchantment makes men neglect their advantage or
their purpose.”50 This is exactly what happens to Apollo when he hears
Hermes’ performance: Hermes’ song causes him to forget his anger at
his younger brother and give up his cattle for the lyre. Significantly,
)<« is the effect caused by a new song, as M. Finkelberg has shown
(cf. 7φ R!! at 443).51
Furthermore, nowhere in the poem are two poetic styles compared.
The audience are only invited to consider the similarities between
poetry/music and prophecy (on this, see above, p. 17–20).
Finally, a word on the vocabulary of learning and practice. At 448
we meet the term "«, which Görgemanns, following AHS, under-
stands as ‘practice’ and relates to a theory of learning consisting of
φ1«, !7(, and )(,52 which he associates with the sophists.53
But this is not necessarily so. There are hints of the idea that music and
poetry can be learned already in Homer, though certainly not as promi-
nent as in the Hymn. When Odysseus praises Demodocus at Od. 8.488,
he points out that he sang the fate of the Achaeans so well as
if the Muse had taught him (ν ! M!# <). A similar idea is
minx, for the gods made it the companion of the feast’); our poet re-literalizes the meta-
phor.
50 Walsh (1984, 14). For the semantics of ) and its relation to magic, see Kraus (1955,
68–69), Maehler (1963, 29–30), Marsh (1979) and Scully (1981, 76 n. 17). ) some-
times has erotic connotations; cf. Od. 18.212–13; further (though not as explicit) Od.
1.57–58 and 3.263–64.
51 See Finkelberg (1985–88).
52 "« does not provide any basis for firm conclusions. It occurs in h.Herm. for the first
time and could be interpreted as either ‘practice’ (instead of "7) or ‘path’ (cf. $
«
ρ«); see 448n.
53 Cf. Görgemanns (1976, 125 with n. 34–35), where he cites as the earliest attestation of this
theory Protag. fr. 3 (φ1!« λ $! 7!« ! ) ,) and 10 D.-K. (3)
(ξ ρ 7 /( Ν )(« 7 )( Ν /(«).
142 Introduction
expressed in Hes. Th. 22 where it is said of the Muses b 1 #

H! )κ < $7.54 And Archilochus 1.2 declares
that he is M! μ !«. Learning of course
implies teaching and practice.
But looking for a theory of learning here misses the poem’s humour.
We must examine "« in its context, i.e. as part of a network of ex-
pressions related to learning that are found between 440 and 502.
Hermes twice assures the elder and presumably omniscient (qua oracu-
lar god) Apollo that he can easily learn whatever he wishes (474 and
489), and explains to him the use of the lyre, while emphasizing the need
for proper knowledge and training. The point is not that the poet pre-
sents a theory of learning akin to Protagoras’, but that the omniscient
god of prophecy himself is taught at length by his one-day-old infant
brother about an art that in mythological narratives was considered to
be his own.
7.1.6 The Glottochronologic Approach

Humbert and Görgemanns’ arguments have influenced Richard
Janko’s dating of the Hymn. He accepts the idea that Hermes’ threat
against Pytho (178–81) reflects the oracle’s contacts with Croesus and
considers 543–49 to be the poet’s defence of the oracle against greed
and falsity.55 The case for an allusion to Croesus’ dedications is, as we
have seen, not certain, and Apollo’s words at 543–49 do not favor the
proposed allusion. As far as we can judge from Herodotus’ account,
Croesus’ mistake was not that he followed any ‘vain-speaking (bird)
omens’ (544, 546) but that he attempted to test the oracle’s accuracy in
the first place and misinterpreted the answer he received from it. But no
hint of testing the oracle exists in h.Herm.56
54 West notes ad loc. that “perhaps Hesiod is here thinking not of the single epiphany but of a
period of practice.” See also Murray (1981, 98–99).
55 Janko (1982, esp. 140–43). Janko views Görgemanns’ arguments as “much the best case for
a date around the beginning of the fifth century” (p. 142), and concludes by stating that “a
date for the poem towards the close of the sixth century fits the evidence best.” Dobson
(1979, 358–59) also considers 543–49 a reference to the Croesus affair.
56 Dobson (1979, 352–53) argues that Croesus’ test oracle is not historical, but “inserted into
Croesus’ logos (or at least told to Herodotus) for Delphi’s own purposes.”
It should be pointed out that in formulating his conclusion about

the date of h.Herm., Janko does not rely so much on his statistical
method as on the poem’s content. As a matter of fact, statistics is not
particularly helpful in the case of h.Herm. since the poem appears to
belong to an “inconsistent” group.57 While the evidence of ζ suggests
h.Herm. to be late, other criteria place it at an earlier stage of the deve-
lopment of epic diction.58 And two of the linguistic criteria (“long”
genitives in - and “long” datives in -!) would place the Hymn at a
stage in formulaic composition earlier than the Iliad. Janko attempts to
explain this situation by resorting to the notion of “false archaism,” i.e.
archaic features consciously used by the poets to give an “archaic gar-
nish” to their style.59 The inconsistency in the distribution of linguistic
criteria is explained by the influence of fixed texts of Homer and He-
siod. In other words, “these poets are learning to compose not by li-
stening to their elders’ poetry so much as by hearing readings or reci-
tations from memory, or by themselves reading, texts fixed at much
earlier phases in the history of the bardic tradition.”60 If this were the
case, however, we should expect a higher degree of consistency in the
distribution of archaisms instead of a wild divergence that leads to an
“inconsistent” group of poems. Why would a deliberately archaizing
poet choose to adopt forms in - and -!, but neglect an equally
archaic feature such as digamma, especially if he was from Boeotia as
Janko maintains, where digamma was still pronounced (cf. Buck GD
§218.8)?
Finally, a general word on the use of digamma in the glottochrono-
logical method is in order.61 No firm conclusions can be drawn from
observances and neglects of digamma regarding the date and pro-
venance of the Hymn. The poetry we are examining is characterized by
57 Janko (1982, 75).

58 These are the genitive in -, the contracted genitive in -, dative in -« before conson-
ant, accusative in -« before vowel, accusative in -« before vowel, and the formulaic sys-
tem of Z(*« etc., most of which position h.Herm. at various points between the Iliad and
the Theogony, the two major landmarks in Janko’s timeline.
59 Janko (1982, 76–79).
60 Janko (1982, 40–41).
61 A thorough review of Janko’s approach would go beyond the scope of this section. The in-
terested reader may consult Heubeck (1984), Hoekstra (1986), and most recently B. Jones
(2010) for criticism on methodological grounds.
144 Introduction
a high degree of repetition. If a poet ‘observes’ digamma in a phrase

where Homer or Hesiod observed it, are we to count this as an observ-
ance or simply as a mechanical re-use of a formula? Digamma was not
always observed, even in areas where it was retained in the vernacular,62
and statistics may be skewed due to the difference in length and content
of the works compared. The situation is further complicated if one con-
siders those cases where it is impossible to determine whether digamma
was observed or not.63 To make matters worse, hiatus is not necessarily
healed before a word that (once) began with ζ-, since it may not have
been observed even in those positions; hiatus is sometimes admitted in
heroic verse. On the other hand, words ending with a - φ) ! *
before a word that originally began with ζ- are not certain neglects
either, as the - may have been inserted in the course of the poem’s
transmission. Editorial choices too ought to be taken into conside-
ration as they can sometimes influence our data (especially in shorter
texts): for instance, the MSS in h.Herm. 263 and 363 read C F, C
*(, C Ν)) Ν !; this verse reminds of Od. 23.40
where Allen’s OCT reads C F, C *(, $)) !* ρ
Ν !. The MSS in that line have C , which Allen changed to C, as-
suming the observance of ζ- in F. The same editor, however, retained
C in h.Herm. presumably because of the poem’s later date. These con-
siderations indicate the degree of caution one should exercise in this
matter.64
Similar questions can be raised with regard to other linguistic fea-
tures (‘long’ datives in -!(), genitives in - etc.).65 More import-
ant, for the glottochronological approach to yield reliable results, it
must be shown that the epic traditional language changed en bloc, at the
same rate over time, that the Iliad and the Theogony, Janko’s two points
of reference, are representative of the entire archaic epic tradition, and
that our texts accurately reflect their first textualization.66 We are also
62 Cf. Janko (1982, 42) and G. P. Edwards (1971, 137–39).

63 I have counted 31 such cases in h.Herm.; obviously, it makes a difference in the resulting
statistics whether one counts them as neglects, observances, or not at all.
64 See B. Jones (2010, 292 n. 12, 293 with n. 14, 301).
65 Note that there seems to be no linguistic priority between the ‘long’ datives in -!() and
the ‘short’ ones in -«; cf. Schipp (1972, 50–52) and B. Jones (2010, 292).
66 B. Jones (2010, 297, 314).
required to ignore other factors that have an important role in the

formation of poetic style. Poetic language certainly changes over time,
but the differences between poems depend on other factors as well, e.g.
epichoric traditions, personal taste, competence, content, mood, etc.,
which statistics cannot adequately reflect. It is therefore wise to bear in
mind Forderer’s warning: “Der jeweilige Stil einer Dichtung steckt ja in
dem ganzen Komplex aus Wort- und Formenwahl, Wortstellung,
Satzbau, Satzverknüpfung, Metrum, Rhythmus, Klang und Komposi-
tion, der in keine Statistik eingeht. Ihm kann am ehesten noch eine auf
den geformten Inhalt gerichtete Einzelinterpretation gerecht werden,
der sich von Fall zu Fall auch eine Statistik anschließen mag.”67
7.1.7 Other Considerations

It has become evident from the above that none of the criteria advanced
thus far is without its problems. I would venture to date the poem to the
second half of the sixth century for the following reasons, but I should
hasten to note that these thoughts, too, involve some degree of specu-
lation:
1. At 186–87 Onchestos is emphatically described as a cult site of
Poseidon. A sanctuary of Poseidon existed there from the late 6th c.
BC (cf. 88n.). The fact that Onchestos is mentioned as sacred to
Poseidon already in the Iliad does not invalidate this piece of
evidence; the Iliadic passage is part of the Catalogue of Ships
(Il. 2.506), where we hear of a P!7 $)μ Ν)!« (cf. h.Herm.
186–87 #O/(!* … )7 Ν)!« | 4μ !φ
f(*/). Schachter (1986, II 215 n. 1) points out that a late date
for h.Herm. (i.e. after the sixth century) would be incompatible with
the archaeological evidence regarding Poseidon’s cult at Onchestos,
unless the poet was purposefully archaizing, and (ibid. p. 212) em-
phasizes the rustic nature of Onchestos as presented in h.Herm. as
67 Forderer (1958, 100): “A particular poetic style lies indeed in the entire complex of word
and form choice, word placement, sentence structure, sentence combination, meter,
rhythm, sound and composition, which do not enter in any statistics. To this style only an
individual interpretation of the formulated content can do justice, and in some cases a stat-
istic may accompany this interpretation.” See also Postlethwaite (1979) who studies the
“common noun + epithet” formula in Homer and the Homeric Hymns and argues for the
existence of a “personal tradition” in these poets who varied their diction for artistic effect.
146 Introduction
well as the absence of a temple of Poseidon, for which the earliest evi-
dence dates to the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th c.
2. As Richardson (2010, 24) points out, Hermes is depicted with the
pan-pipes during the sixth century, while from ca. 500 BC onwards
we see his son Pan represented with this instrument.68
3. The staff that Hermes receives from Apollo at 528ff. may also offer
some help.69 It is described as ‘most beautiful, golden and three-
leafed,’ but nothing is said of its decoration with snakes. This form
of the caduceus is said to derive from the wand with an eight-shaped
decoration, which itself is a development from the fork-shaped
caduceus or “Zwieselstab” (forked stick).70 The wand that Hermes
receives seems thus to belong to the older type. According to de
Waele’s study of the evolution of the magic rod, the change to the
eight-shaped type must have occurred by the middle of the sixth
century.71 The use of the caduceus as a dating criterion presupposes
that the passage in question is not interpolated (as I believe is the
case) and that we are not dealing with a ‘cultural archaism’ whereby
the poet is resorting to the pristine form of the caduceus to make his
account accord better with the mythical time in which the events
take place.
4. Shapiro (1989, 129) describes a neck-amphora (late 6th c.; private
collection) which depicts on the right Hermes emerging from what
appears to be a temple. “At the left a man, accompanied by two
women, stands over a brazier piled high with roasting meat. He ges-
tures with outstretched hand to Hermes (the god himself, not a
herm), who approaches from the right to receive the sacrifice in a
surprisingly modest pose, his head bent and hand gesturing to the
brazier as if to say ‘for me?’” Shapiro interprets this vase as “a de-
liberate play on the god’s invention of the roasting of sacrificed
meat, which he himself dared not eat.”
68 See Haas (1985, 50–52, 60–62); for representations of Hermes with the syrinx (all from the
6th c.), see p. 86–87 nos. 8, 9, 11, 13.
69 Càssola 173 dismisses the evidence from the caduceus on the grounds that it occurs in the
final section of the Hymn which he considers spurious; but see 503–78n.
70 On the evolution of the caduceus, see de Waele (1927) and Boetzkes (1921, esp. 334–35).
71 See de Waele (1927, 73).
All this points to a date in the second half of sixth century. This
would accord well with the general interest in the story of Hermes
the thief that we notice in the art of the sixth and early fifth centuries
(e.g. LIMC V, s.v. Hermes 240, 241, 245–48), as well as some literary
works (Alcaeus, and possibly the Great Ehoiae).
In particular, we may note the following regarding the vases which
depict scenes from Hermes’ story. Hermes’ theft of Apollo’s cattle is de-
picted already on a “Tyrrhenian” amphora now at Geneva (MF 156;
565–50 BC): an adult Hermes, wearing a petasos, winged sandals, and
an animal hide, and holding the caduceus, walks in the midst of cows,
but there seems to be no indication that he used the stratagem described
in h.Herm.72 The situation changes with the skyphos of the Museo Na-
zionale of Taranto (no. 7030; ca. 500 B.C.; LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 246),
in which, though it is difficult to tell with absolute certainty whether
Hermes uses the stratagem described in the Hymn, Hermes is walking
with his torso turned so that he faces the cattle (cf. perhaps -
! φ( at 210). On BM E 815 (LIMC, s.v. Hermes 248; 510–500
B.C.; fig. 5) Hermes, sitting on a rock, plays the lyre in front of the
cattle; the artist combines Hermes the cattle-thief and Hermes the lyre-
player, which possibly presumes the story of Hermes as the inventor of
the lyre. And on NY Met. GR 529 (LIMC, s.v. Hermes 247; 490 BC;
figs. 4a–b) the adult Hermes, wearing a petasos and winged sandals, is
sitting on a rock; in front of him there are two cows, while on the other
side of the vase there are three more cows, one of which seems to be
walking backwards. The motif of Hermes the divine child and cattle-
thief is already known to the artist of the Caeretan Hydria (Louvre E
702, 530–25 BC; fig. 3), though it is impossible to tell whether he knew
also Hermes as the creator of the lyre.73 It is clear then that in the last
quarter of the 6th century there was a pronounced interest in the story
represented also in the h.Herm., and it would be reasonable to date the
composition of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes around this time (second
half of 6th c. B.C.).
72 See Yalouris (1958, 163–71). On the artistic representations of scenes related to h.Herm.,
see Nobili (2011, 155–59).
73 On this vase, see the discussion in Bonaudo (2004, 58–66), who points out that the table on
which Hermes lies resembles the sacrificial trapezai; this may be an allusion to Hermes’
“sacrifice” in the Hymn.
148 Introduction
7.2 Place of Composition

Attica, Ionia, Euboea, and Boeotia have been proposed as possible
places for the Hymn’s composition. The evidence adduced for most of
these is predominately linguistic, and here too most arguments are in-
conclusive.
The case for Attica has already been discussed when examining
Brown’s ideas on the Hymn’s date and need not be repeated here. The
poem does not contain enough Atticisms to warrant its attribution to
an Athenian poet (see above, p. 45–46). What we can say with certainty
is that Athens provided the locus in which the Hymn’s story became
popular, as Sophocles’ Ichneutae and vase painting indicate.74 But there
is nothing in the Hymn that betrays Athenian composition. What we
can tell for sure given the promotion of Hermes’ cult by the Peisistratids
(especially the dissemination of herms)75, vase painting, and Sophocles’
inspiration from the Hymn in the Ichneutae (cf. above, p. 79–86) is that
Athens was a place where a hymn to Hermes could thrive and be reper-
formed.
Linguistic considerations led August Fick to consider Euboea as
the place of composition. He restored the form π/ at 400, and due to
its similarity with D/ that occurs on an inscription from Oropus (IG
VII 235.16) he suggested that this form, along with » of 255, sup-
ported the view that the poet was an Ionian from Euboea.76 However,
the form π/ is not particularly Euboean (it can be paralleled by
$))/, /), while » is not guaranteed since our MSS
preserve unanimously »!! at 212. Hence this isolated form cannot
be used as a basis for an argument.
Ionian origin was suggested by W. Luther on the basis of the simi-
larity between Hermes and Odysseus as liars.77 He furthermore con-
74 For the Athenian fortune of the Hymn, see Nobili (2011, 160–76 and 209–24) ch. 7, who
argues for Athenian composition. Note in particular the Brygos cup that represents
Hermes, Maia, Apollo, and his cattle in Maia’s cave (figs. 2a–d) and the fifth century leky-
thos (470?) where a schoolboy is depicted reading from a scroll that contains what looks to
be the incipit of h.Hom. 18 (E
$); see 1n. on 8.
75 But the herms were not invented by the Peisistratids; see Rückert (1998, 55–57) with Abb. 1
for the Sounion herm, dating from the first quarter of the 6th c. BC.
76 Fick (1896, 272), followed by AH/AHS who suggsted a Euboean or Oropian poet.
77 Cf. Luther (1935, 160–69) who argues against Radermacher’s view that the poet was Boeo-
tian.
sidered Apollo’s words at 542 ()) $ φ)#

$ @) a reflection of the Homeric belief that gods can be dece-
ptive (for which he cites Il. 21.599, 604). But this is not convincing
either. Although it is certainly true that Hermes is compared with
Odysseus in the poem (see p. 65–67), this does not imply that the poet
was Ionian. It only shows that he was familiar with the Odyssean tradi-
tion or with stories about Odysseus. And the belief that gods may de-
ceive is not specifically Ionic or Odyssean.
On account of the discussion on prophecy in the last section of the
poem (533ff.) H. Herter argued that the Hymn was composed (or ac-
quired its definitive form) in Delphi.78 The Bee-oracle is located at the
foot of Parnassus, while Apollo’s mantic seat is at Delphi. It is thus the
localization of the two oracles that argues for the Hymn’s composition
in Delphi.79 But this approach too privileges one particular section of
the poem while ignoring the rest and assumes that the poem’s only
focus is the possession of the art of prophecy, which is not the case. One
could similarly claim that the poem had been composed with Olympia
in mind, given that Hermes performs his “sacrifice” by the Alpheios
and because Apollo and Hermes shared an altar in Olympia.
Boeotia has been proposed both for linguistic and thematic reasons.
The form $ *« 0 has been cited in support, but this too is not dis-
tinctly Hesiodic (cf. 106n.). Borrowings from Hesiod have also been ad-
duced as proof of the Hymn’s Boeotian provenance: )(« # C
)7 /(« (76) ~ Th. 547, μ« $7 (110) ~ Th. 696 (though cf.
Od. 12.369 πL« $7 which may point to an under-represented for-
mula), # C# (! (243) ~ Th. 551, $ 1!! (415) ~
Th. 827, F ") ρ λ /)μ μ 1 (φ (36) ~ Op. 365,
3 ) # 3 R& (120) ~ Op. 382. These phrases, however, do not
prove Boeotian origin but only that the poet was familiar with the He-
siodic tradition. The similarities with the Theogony derive from the
Prometheus and the Typhoeus episodes, which may have become popu-
78 See Herter (1981, 199).

79 Herter, loc. cit., tellingly remarks: “Even someone who considers the appendix added by a
different poet will not be able to obscure the fact that the Hymn, as it has found its defini-
tive form that was destined to be transmitted to us, refers to Delphi. Here is Apollo estab-
lished, here is the Bee-oracle.” The Bee-oracle is of course not located in Delphi; cf. 546n.
on $.
150 Introduction
lar early on in the tradition, as Janko points out,80 and serve specific
poetic purposes: Hermes is implicitly likened to another trickster figure
(Prometheus) while the reference to Typhoeus, the last challenger to the
order established by Zeus, is in line with the presentation of Hermes
and Apollo’s conflict in terms reminiscent of the succession myth (cf.
254–77n.) On Hesiodic influence on the Hymn, see p. 67–70.
Radermacher’s conjecture at 109 (!= a term for pomegranate
or water-lily used in the area around Orchomenos) has also been cited
in support of Boeotian origin. But the conjecture is not necessary (cf.
109–14n., end), and even if admitted, it would be of limited value. The
Boeotian origin of the poem cannot be proved on the basis of this one
word alone. The two references to Onchestos have also been cited in this
regard, but Boeotian provenance is not the only explanation; see 88n.
At any rate, a similar argument could be made for any place mentioned
in the poem.
Performance at a religious festival like the Hermaia has been argued
by S. I. Johnston, who suggests that the initiation rites in which the
young men participated would be mirrored by the cattle-theft story.81
Johnston surveys a number of places that hosted (or might have hosted)
Hermaia where the Hymn could have been performed, but does not sug-
gest a particular venue for the ‘original’ performance.82 These places are
Pheneos, Pellene, Delphi, Delos, and Olympia. One may object, as
Johnston herself remarks, that Pellene, Delos, and Olympia are not
overtly mentioned in the Hymn;83 and we do not know of any Hermaia
80 Cf. Janko (1982, 140).

81 See Johnston (2002), repeated with minor changes in eadem (2003). Hermes’ role in initi-
ation is discussed also in Fletcher (2008, esp. 30–33). But note that, as Johnston (2002, 127)
points out, no adolescent initiation rites per se existed in (historical) ancient Greece. On
the Hermaia festival, see the discussion of the Beroia inscription (SEG 27: 261) in Gauthier
and Hatzopoulos (1993, 95–141) and Lupu (2009, 249–68). There were not many festivals
dedicated specifically to Hermes (see above, p. 38–39).
82 Johnston (2002, 128–30) = (2003, 171–74). In general the Homeric Hymns themselves sug-
gest a variety of performance contexts. A contest is explicitly mentioned at h.Hom. 6.19
and it might might be suggested at h.Hom. 24.5 (/ # Ϊ# R!! $9
), 25.6
(/ :μ« λ κ 7!# $7). But h.Hom. 26.12–13 (μ« # π»«
/ « « — « σ« ¹ ! | # # σ# ³ « L« ))L« 1«)
implies re-performance at a festival, while performance at a festival can be assumed for
h.Apol.; h.Herm. may imply the performance at a symposion (see p. 24).
83 According to Pi. O. 7.156c (I 232 Drachmann) in Pellene were celebrated the Theoxenia
(in honour of Apollo) as well as the Hermaia () ξ ξ P))79 (
« #A/U«
at Delphi. The tradition that Hermes had found the tortoise on Mt.
Chelydorea in Pellene is also absent from the Hymn, or rather sup-
pressed as we are told that he finds the tortoise just outside of Maia’s
cave, i.e. on Mt. Cyllene.84 The information on the Hermaia at Pheneos
is rather late (Pausanias).
But more generally, it may be doubted whether the Hymn has any
direct relation to cultic, initiatory events.85 We should not forget that the
cattle-theft is just one episode in the Hymn. In treating this theme, the
poet emphasizes Hermes’ metis rather than his strength (except for his
passing remark at 117 1« ¹ 3) ))7 – but this strength is
not evoked during the abduction of the cattle), while the Hymn’s adult
character (Apollo) is at times presented as comically inept. In the dis-
cussion on prophecy (533–66) one might think of Apollo as the adult
male figure who trains a younger male (Hermes). But Apollo’s instruc-
tions in that section are peculiar for two reasons: he only “teaches” the
younger Hermes after Hermes has instructed him on how to use the
lyre; and Apollo’s instructions verbally resemble Hermes’ preceding ex-
position on the lyre (see p. 17–18). Oddly, the speech of the younger
Hermes serves as a model for the speech of Apollo, his adult educator.
Furthermore, Hermes’ function as $@« or @« (known to
Simonides, Pindar, and Aeschylus) is not even hinted at in the poem, a
curious omission if the Hymn was meant to be performed in a context
where Hermes was evoked in precisely this function.86
Finally, judging by the inscription with the gymnasiarchic law from
Beroia, which sets out the regulations of the Hermaia (B 45–71),87 the
judges and the gymnasiarch had to swear an oath to Hermes that they
would judge impartially (B 49–51, B 54–57). It would be odd if a poem
such as the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, in which Hermes displays his
craftiness by lying and evading the oaths he himself utters, was to be re-
cited in such a festival. The same inscription provides that during the
$Ω ² )1« ><· « ξ λ 6E ). Raingeard (1934, 71) assumed

that the two gods competed for, or shared, the games and therefore considered Pellene the
setting (“cadre”) of h.Herm.
84 See Johnston (2003, 173).
85 See Vamvouri-Ruffy (2004) for a discussion of rhapsodic (Homeric) and cultic hymns.
86 Cf. Lupu (2009, 262).
87 Edited with commentary by Gauthier and Hatzopoulos (1993); cf. SEG 43: 381.
152 Introduction
banquet following the Hermaia no entertainment will be provided: B

66–67 (cited from Gauthier and Hatzopoulos [1993]) ¹ ξ ¹ λ
λ ² ! /« $ * | (ξ ! « μ *).88
And even though hymns were recited at, or around, an altar,89 it would
not be appropriate to recite h.Herm. where the praised god deliberately
perverts the ritual (see 116–41n.). It is thus difficult to see how h.Herm.
could mirror any form of “initiation,” however we understand the term,
even though Hermes was certainly a god of initiations.90 Finally, Paus.
8.14.10–11 and Pi. O. 6.77–80 speak of games in honour of Hermes and
not of poetic competitions.91
Unfortunately, then, the text does not provide us with firm ground
to determine its place of composition. The poet mentions various
places in mainland Greece and the Peloponnese, but without such de-
tail as to allow one to claim that he knows any of them better than
others. All the information about them is conventional or common-
place in literature (e.g. the cave and mountains at Cyllene, Olympus as
the seat of the gods, Delphi with Apollo’s temple, Onchestos with Po-
seidon’s grove, sandy Pylos etc.). Hermes’ “sacrifice” is of no great help
either: it is localized “at the ford of Alpheios,” without any further spe-
cification, and Olympia, which would readily spring to mind consider-
ing that Hermes makes offerings to the Twelve Gods, is not even men-
88 Gauthier and Hatzopoulos (1993, 113–14) follow L. Robert (1930, 116–17), idem (1974,
536–37), and L. and J. Robert (1989, 47–48) in understanding $ * as designating a
variety of artists: musicians, actors (especially mime and pantomime actors), and dancers,
whose introduction into the banquet might lead to disorderly entertainment. The main-
tenance of discipline is the reason for this provision according to Lupu (2009, 268) as well.
But note that $ could also refer to more serious forms of entertainment; cf.
Slater (2004, 147–54). At FD III 2 47.20–29 (138 BC) they are specified as aulos and ci-
thara players, aulodoi and kitharodoi, tragic and comic actors, and chorodidaskaloi;
characteristically, among the $ is listed also Limenius, son of Thoinus, the poet
of the Delphic Paean (p. 149–59 CA). In her discussion of this inscription Bélis (1988, 216)
distinguishes between two kinds of performances: the official paean (by Athenaeus) sung
by a chorus of 39 members and a hymn of Limenius sung to musical accompaniment dur-
ing the performances of the technitai ($ ).
89 See J. M. Bremmer (1981, 197).
90 For the problems involved in the notion of “initiation” and especially its relation to socie-
tal changes in the 20th century, see Graf (2003) and Lincoln (2003). For Hermes as a god of
initation, see Costa (1982) and Majorel (2003).
91 Cf. Nobili (2011, 185–88).
tioned.92 H.Herm. is a poem that could equally satisfy a local audience

of Arcadians proud of the god born in their land, as well as an audience
in Athens or Thebes or any other Greek polis: stories of local interest
(e.g. the story of Battos, Hermes’ local origins in Arcadia, or the Pelo-
ponnesian cattle-theft myth) are combined with the lyre’s invention and
form a poem that transcends local concerns and attains Pan-Hellenic
dimensions.93
92 Larson (2005, 11) points out that the Hymn poet seems more interested in “link[ing]
Hermes’ activity to a geological feature (124–26) near “Pylos” … than [in] specify[ing] a
connection to Olympia.”
93 Cf. R. Parker (1991, 6) on h.Dem.: “The Hymn-writer … worked with Eleusinian themes,
but put them into new combinations and gave them emphases they had not received be-
fore, and which in fact they scarcely could have received except in a comparatively sophis-
ticated, carefully planned work such as the Hymn undoubtedly is.” On the Pan-Hellenism
of the Homeric Hymns, see Clay Politics, passim. On the cattle-theft myth, see Nobili
(2011, 23–70).
154 Introduction
8. The Transmission of the Text
The text of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes is transmitted in the following

twenty-three manuscripts:1
D= Ambrosianus Graecus 120 (B 98 sup.) copied between 1420–
1428 by Georgius Chrysococcas (Apollonius Rhodius, Batra-
chomyomachia, [Hdt.] Vita Homeri, Opuscula of Maximus of
Tyre, Homeric Hymns 3–33, epigram « <«, Callimachus).
Q= Ambrosianus 734 (S 31 sup.) 15th c. (Hymns by Orpheus and
Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fugitivus,
Callimachus, Pindar).
O= Ambrosianus 845 (C 10 inf.) 15th c. (Plato, Cratylus, [Orp-
heus] Argonautica, Hymns by Orpheus and Proclus, Homeric
Hymns 3–4.80).
At = Athous Vatopedi 671, 15th c. (Sophocles, Aj., El., OT, E. Hec.,
Or., Ph., Homeric Hymns 3–33, epigram « <«, [Hdt.]
Vita Homeri, Callimachus) copied by Girard of Old Patras
whose activity falls between ca. 1420 and 1443.
= Bruxellensis 74 (11377–11380) end of 15th–beginning of 16th
c. copied by Aristoboulos Diaconos, son of Michael Aposto-
lios (Theognis, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fugiti-
vus, Hymns by Orpheus and Proclus).
Harv. = Harvardensis Coll. Ms. Typ. 18, copied by Ioannes Rhosos,
second half of 15th c. ([Orph.] Argonautica, Hymns by Or-
pheus and Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fu-
gitivus, Musaeus, Aratus).
L3 = Laurentianus XXXII 4, 15th c. (Iliad, Odyssey, Homeric
Hymns 3–33).
1 The information on the manuscripts derives from Càssola 593–96; see also Breuning
(1929, 3–6) and Wilson (1974). A detailed description of the manuscript tradition may be
found on p. 593–616 of Càssola’s edition. For the textual transmission of the Homeric
Hymns, see also Hollander (1886), Allen (1895), idem (1897a), and Breuning (1929).
The Transmission of the Text 155
L= Laurentianus XXXII 45, 15th c. (A.R., [Orph.] Arg., Hymns

by Orpheus and Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–7.33).
L2 = Laurentianus LXX 35, copied by Ioannes Scutariotes, second
half of 15th c. ([Hdt.] Vita Homeri, Gorgias, Encomium Hel-
enae, [Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Orpheus and Proclus, Homeric
Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fugitivus, Musaeus).
L4 = Laurentianus Aedil. 220, copied by Ioannes Scutariotes, se-
cond half of 15th c. ([Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Orpheus and Pro-
clus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fugitivus, Mu-
saeus).
M= Leidensis B. P. G. 33 G, beginning of 15th c. (Iliad 8.435–
13.134, Homeric Hymns 1.10–18.4).2
N= Leidensis B. P. G. 74 C, 15th c. ([Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Or-
pheus and Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fu-
gitivus, Musaeus).
V= Venetus Marcianus 456, 15th c. (Iliad, Q.S., Odyssey, Homeric
Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fugitivus, Batrachomyomachia).
T= Matritensis 4562 (olim 24), copied in 1464 by Constantinos
Lascaris (Musaeus, [Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Orpheus and
Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, epigram « <«, Callima-
chus).
Mon. = Monacensis 333, 15th c. ([Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Orpheus and
Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–4.192, [Hdt.] Vita Homeri).
E= Mutinensis Estensis 164 (a T 9.14), copied by Giorgio Valla
between 1491 and 1492 (Hymns by Orpheus, Proclus, and
Callimachus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, epigram « <«).
A= Parisinus Graecus 2763, 15th c. ([Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Or-
pheus, Proclus, Callimachus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Mo-
schus, Amor fugitivus, Musaeus, Hesiod, Theocritus).
2 On the history of this famous manuscript, see Gelzer (1994). M belongs to a different
branch of the tradition, independent from the (lost) hyparchetype , and must have been
copied from an originally defective manuscript. Some of its errors indicate that its arche-
type was written in majuscule. Contrary to most manuscripts which transmit the Homeric
Hymns along with the Hymns of Callimachus, [Orpheus], and Proclus and other late
poetry, M groups the Homeric Hymns with other Homeric poetry (Il. 8.435–13.134). It is
characterized by mis-divisions, omissions or permutations of letters, and errors of accen-
tuation. It omits lines 136, 218–19, 499, and 510, but is the sole witness for lines 422 and
457–8. M, finally, transmits readings not found in the other branch of the textual tradition,
though they are not always reliable; their merit should be judged on an individual basis.
156 Introduction
B= Parisinus Graecus 2765, 15th c. (Hymns by Orpheus and Pro-

clus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor Fugitivus).
C= Parisinus Graecus 2833, 15th c. (Theocritus, Homeric Hymns
3–33, epigram « <«, Moschus, Amor fugitivus, Mu-
saeus, Hesiod, Dionysius Periegeta, Theognis, Phocylides).
P= Parisinus Graecus suppl. 1095, end of 15th c. (Iliad, Homeric
Hymns 3–33, epigram « <«, Hymns by Callimachus,
Orpheus and Proclus, Batrachomyomachia).
R1 = Riccardianus 51 (K II 13), copied by Ioannes Rhosos, second
half of 15th c. ([Orph.] Arg., Hymns by Orpheus and Proclus,
Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus Amor fugitivus, Musaeus).
R2 = Riccardianus 52 (K II 14), copied by Ioannes Scutariotes, sec-
ond half of 15th c. (Hymns by Orpheus and Proclus, Homeric
Hymns 3–33, Moschus, Amor fugitivus)
P= Vaticanus Palatinus 179, first half of 15th c. ([Hdt.] Vita
Homeri, Gorgias Encomium Helenae, [Orph.] Arg., Hymns by
Orpheus and Proclus, Homeric Hymns 3–33, Moschus Amor
fugitivus, Musaeus).
Vaticanus Reginensis 91, 16th c. (Allen’s G), containing the Homeric

Hymns 3–33, derives from the editio princeps. Finally, P.Oxy. LXVIII
4667 (= 1231.01 M-P3; 3rd c. AD) contains h.Hom. 18.4–11, the largest
part of which overlaps almost verbatim with h.Herm. (i.e. lines 4–10);
no major textual differences are noted apart from )! ) for )-
! ) (6).
In producing this commentary I did not collate the manuscripts but
followed F. Càssola’s critical text; a list of my divergences from his text
may be found below. A new collation did not seem necessary, as no new
material has become available since Càssola’s edition. As Càssola him-
self notes, the collation of the manuscripts allowed him to correct some
mainly minor errors or fill some gaps, but did not produce any great in-
novations.3 My apparatus criticus is based on Càssola’s apparatus, but I
have also consulted the following editions: Goodwin (1893), Gemoll
3 Càssola 628 (§24) notes: “Come era prevedibile, la collazione mi ha permesso di correggere
qualche svista, generalmente non grave, e di colmare qualche lacuna, ma non ha portato
grandi novità: gli studiosi più recenti (Goodwin, Allen, Breuning, Humbert) conoscevano
bene il materiale disponibile”; so also Faulkner (2008, 55–56).
(1886), Allen (1912), Radermacher (1931), Humbert (1937), West

(2003a), and Richardson (2010), as well as the collation of At published
by Constantinides (1894) and the material presented in Breuning
(1929).
The stemma codicum is as follows:4
In what follows, I note my (generally minor) divergences from Càssola;

these are discussed in the commentary. In general, my approach to the
constitution of the text is conservative: wherever possible, I attempt to
preserve the MSS reading, and I further believe that there is no need to
posit any missing lines in the text.5
4 See Càssola 612. On the relation between D and At, see Wilson (1974).
5 Cf. in this respect Clay Politics 102, quoted above, p. 17 n. 38.
158 Introduction
Càssola This edition

13 *# *
31 / , μ« ' (, / 1 μ« ' (,
33 *) R! Q!!, *) R! * !!,
41 $)7!« †$()7!«
45 ν #
48 W
51 !φ@« ()
59 S )μ S )
60 #
76 $! 5«· )(« ). $! 5« – )(« … /(« –
79 C W5λ C # 3 5
80 Νφ ! ). – Νφ ! … 3 –
82 $ )μ Ν )
90 1)« c« 1) »)
100 ( Ν «, M( Ν «.
103 $
« $
«
109 # F)) !)
)5 !7 )
116 K" 1/« K" /«
117 *«, 1« … ))7α *« – 1« … ))7 –
141 ) )
175 7!, 1, 7!· 1 ).
188 @) † @)
208 φ !, !φξ« # C ρ,
!, φ ! – !φξ« # C ρ –
!.
209 !
3 9 (!
212 »!! !!
241 )1« ")1«
248 )« )«
255 »!! !!
274 # )« ξ )«
306 $φ# c! ) $φ# c« )«
325 !)))κ ¹)(
326 #H
339 9(
346 Ν= « Ν) «
347 / α / ,
355 « «
371 )), )).
372 *«. *«,
376 *(· … C*«α *( – … C*« –
384 1 . 1 –
398 *# # *# # #
402 « φ« « φ«
418 )1 ( /)
423 μ )
439 ¹, ¹·
440 ν _
442 $7. $7;
457 )
464 φ «α φ «;
479 !( !«
497 ' Ω 3/
502 Ν Ν!
503 W 3
508–9 ³« 3 λ · | !7#, λ ). ³« 3 λ | !7#, λ ).
515 Ϊ )59 (« $ )59 («
527 $ … $ … «
575 9 ( φ)*( ( φ)*(
Finally, at 366 I print Càssola’s 366a.
Besides the apparatus criticus, the text in this edition is equipped with
two further registers. First directly below the text, an apparatus with
formulaic parallels. This does not strive for completeness, and its only
purpose is to document the degree in which h.Herm. shows formulaic
affinities with other texts in the archaic hexameter tradition. Generally,
when there are multiple parallels, I list only one. An asterisk in this ap-
paratus indicates that the phrase adduced is located in the same metri-
cal sedes. Below the formulaic parallels is found an apparatus with pa-
rallels in later literature. Mere echoes are simply included in this
register; the cases where I think one might speak of an allusion are dis-
cussed elsewhere in the introduction (p. 110–24).
160 Introduction
161
YMNO EI E}MHN

162
SIGLA
A Parisinus Graecus 2763

At Athous Vatopedi 671
B Parisinus Graecus 2765
f Bruxellensis 74
D Ambrosianus 120
E Mutinensis 164
L Laurentianus XXXII 45
L2 Laurentianus LXX 35
L3 Laurentianus XXXII 4
L4 Laurentianus Aedil. 220
M Leidensis B. P. G. 33 G
N Leidensis B. P. G. 74 C
O Ambrosianus 845
P Vaticanus Palatinus 179
P Parisinus, suppl. 1095
Q Ambrosianus 734
R1 Riccardianus 53
R2 Riccardianus 52
T Matritensis 4562
V Marcianus 456
x consentiunt E T L P
> consentiunt At D x
p consentiunt A Q B f P V aut A Q B P V
~ consentiunt > p
Aac ante correctionem
Ac correxit manus prima
Am adiecit in margine manus prima
A2m adiecit in margine manus alia
A2 adiecit manus alia
A2c correxit manus alia
163
Wolf1 = Wolf (1784)

Wolf2 = Wolf (1807)
Allen1 = Allen (1896)
Allen2 = Allen (1912)
164
E« E
E
8 M! :μ« λ M« ¹*,
K))7(« λ #A (« )7),
Ν) $ 1, χ M
1φ( )* « :μ« φ)*( !
5 (· ξ )1’ Ρ)
1 E
etc. Od. 8. 334* et al. : 8 cf. h.Hom. 31.1* 8 M! h.Hom. 9.1*, cf. Od. 1.1*
3 M! : M! Od. 1.1* : :*« * Il. 1.5 et al. : M« ¹* etc. Od. 14.435* : :μ«
λ M« ¹* etc., h.Herm. 235* et al., cf. Il. 1. 9 [(« λ :μ« ¹*« 2 = h.Hom.
18.2: K))7(« [Hes.] fr. 170.1*, h.Herm. 142, 228, 337 : K))7(« cf. Il. 16.234
:@(« : λ #A (« )7) h.Hom. 18.2*, [Hes.] fr. 23a.32* [ # #A («]
)7), cf. Il. 2.605 λ #O /μ )1() 3 = h.Hom. 18.3, cf. [Hes.] fr. 170:
$ Il. 5.186* et al.: 1 etc. Il. 24.679* et al. : Ν) $ cf. Hes.
Th. 939* 7 # $ : Ν) $ 1, cf. Hes. Op. 85 /L Ν-
), h.Hom. 19.29 « μ« Ν)« : Il. 1.36* et al. : χ (etc.) () cc v || Il. 2. 313*
et al. : M h.Herm. 19* et al. 4 = h.Hom. 18.4(b), 19.34 1φ9 ( ) ) : 1«
φ)*(
; 1φ( etc. Od. 1. 14* et al. : )* « etc. Il. 6.380*/385*, Od. 7.41*,
7.246* et al. : 1φ( )* « etc. Od. 1.86* et al. : :*« Il. 1.334* et al. : φ)*( Il.
3.445* et al. : φ)*( ! Od. 19.266*, Hes. Th. 125*, 333*, Cypr. 9.2*, cf. h.Aphr. 5.150
φ)*(
et al. : φ)*( ! etc. Hes. Th. 375* et al. : :μ« φ)*( !
h.Hom. 7.57, cf. Hes. Th. 920 :μ« φ)*( !, Th. 944 /! φ)*( :*« (cf.

φ)*( λ C9
, φ)*( 7) 5 ≈ h.Hom. 18.5, cf. Od. 17.67 C ²
ξ 3 $)1 )L Ρ): ( etc. Il. 22.451* et al. : etc. Il. 1.339* et al.:
etc. Il. 1.540* et al. : ξ Il. 1. 339, cf. Od. 8.281, 9.276 et
al., Hes. Th. 101, h.Dem. 345 et al. : Ρ) etc. Il. 4.86* et al. : )1’ Ρ) cf. Od. 17.67
2 Hippon. 3 (M(« ) K))7(« ) : [Orph.] A. 137 K))7(« | [Orph.]
A. 198 ($#) #A (« )7)* 3 Bacch. 19.30 # Ν)[ :*«] : E. Hel.
242–43 μ % 1 … M« * : Lyr. Adesp. fr. 34.10 (p. 196 CA) ν /L Ν)
7I $ : cf. Nonn. D. 3.433 Ν) $ ! * 3–4 [Orph.] A. 119
χ #A) 7( Z(λ K ! (cf. h.Herm. 312) 5–9 S. Ichn. 265–70 (cf. p. 81)
Titulus « '

D P (« ' L) : 8« 1 « « '
E T : C 8 «
'
M : « μ '
p 1 K > (K! L) 5 L | L | )1# Ρ)
M p Pc Chalcondyles : )1# Ρ) x : )1# R) D : )1# R) At
EI! E"MHN 165
Ν 3! ! )! , 3 K

1φ9 ( ) ) !! μ« $)),
Rφ ) L« 8« 3/ ) @) 6H (,
)7 $« L« (1« ’ $ @«.
$))’ Ρ κ ) :μ« *« <), 10
9

’ -( « λ« C )
!7 ,
F« φ*« Ν $ !( 3 ·
λ * )1 , ¹)7(,
)(!
’, )
", π7 ’ S ,
6 ≈ h.Hom. 18. 6 Ν ) !: Ν etc. Hes. Th. 483* et al. : 3! Od. 11.579* et al. :
! cf. Il. 2.130* : Ν 3! ! cf. h.Hom. 20.4 Ν « ! : 3 Il. 2.
594* et al. : K Il. 1.528* et al. 7 = h.Hom. 18.7: 1φ9 ( ) ) cf. 4 : !-
! Od. 18.325* : μ« $)) Il. 22.28*, cf. Il. 11.173 ( μ« $)) ), 15.324
()(« μ« $)) ) 8 ≈ h.Hom. 18.8, cf. Od. 18.188 ) L 8 3/:
Rφ Il. 2.359* et al. : ) L« 8« etc. Od. 8.445* et al. : 3/ etc. Hes. Th. 462* et al. : 8«
3/ Od. 15.7 (3/), 20.85 (3/9 (!), cf. Il. 22.502 (8« Q)) : ) @) 6H ( etc. Il.
20.112* et al. 9 ≈ h.Hom. 18.9 () # …), cf. Hes. Th. 588 ( # 3/) $«
L« (1« ’ $ @«, h.Hom. 1.6–7 !ξ # 3 κ $ | ))μ
$# $ @ 1 ) @) 6H (: )7 cf. Il. 13. 273 : $« L« etc.
h.Herm. 427* : (1« # $ @« Phoron. fr. 5.2*, cf. [Hes.] fr. 70.27* 10 ≈ Hes. Th.
1002 ) ξ :μ« *« <): $))’ Ρ κ Il. 3.209* et al. : ) Il. 10.24* et al. :
) :μ« Il. 12.241*, cf. Il. 5.907, 6.304, Hes. Th. 708 et al. : *« Il. 2.192* et al. : :μ«
*« cf. Il. 16.103 Z(*« *«, Il. 16.688, Hes. Op. 483 Z(μ« *«, [Hes.] fr. 16.7 : <-
) etc. Il. 9.493* et al. 11 9
etc. ’ -( Il. 1.250* et al. (Od. 8. 502 λ ’ -() : -( Il.
5.380* et al. : « etc. Il. 6.175* et al. : « Hes. Op. 557* : C ) Il. 4.44* et al. :
!7 etc. Il. 16.111* et al. : C ) !7 cf. Il. 4.443 C ) !7 <
12 φ*« Il. 2.49* : F« φ*« Ν cf. Il. 16.188 < μ φ*« , Il. 19.118 ’
Ν μ φ*« : 3 etc. Il. 2.614* et al. : etc. Il. 5.402* et al. : 3 etc.
Il. 22.450*, Od. 11.610*, cf. Il. 17.279*, Od. 11.550* et al. ( λ ’) 3 , Il. 4.470*
3 1/( 13 λ *’ Il. 1.92* et al. : Il. 1.280, 4.400 et al. : etc. Il.
9.494* et al. : [Hes.] fr. 43a.59*, 180.11*, 193.12* (suppl.), cf. Il. 6.26, 14.324 et
al.; )1 etc. Od. 1.1*, 10.330*, h.Herm. 439* : ¹)7( cf. $ )7(« etc. Il.
4.59*, Hes. Th. 137* et al., h.Aphr. 22*, 42* 14 " Il. 10.352* et al. : )
" cf.
h.Herm. 265, 377 cv1½ " )
: S etc. Od. 19.562* et al.
6 Antim. 3.2 Ν … ! * (cf. p. 111–12) : PMG 936.8 C! … # Ν | Nonn.

D. 31.33 3! ! 7 Nonn. D. 7.202* 3 K 9 P. Köln III 127.6
11 Arat. 10 C ) !7 < 12 « φ« Ν, cf. Pl. Prt. 320d, 321c, Phdr. 261e, R.
461c, 521c, Lg. 724a, 869c
λ«
8 3/ B 10 κ om. p 11 λ« p x (Parisiensis) : κ« M : « D Chalcondyles
12 Ν# $ !( M | # 3 M 13 *# D Chalcondyles 14 π7 #
S codd. : π7 φ Gemoll
166 YMNO!
15 μ« S(
, )(* , χ« /’ 3))
$φ ) 3 ’ $! !·
)
« Ω« !) - &,
'! « "« )5 ' ("*) #A*))«,
9
9
( 9

* M.
20 χ« λ λ κ ( μ« $’ $ *
C ( μ 3 ¹ ) λ ) )
,
$))’ Ρ ’ $U<« &7 "*« #A*))«
Cμ K " K5( φ« Ν .
3 /) K Ω 7! R)"·
25 E
« @! /) 7’ $*,
15 *« etc. Il. 10.188 et al. : Ρ« etc. Il. 1.78* et al. : /’ 3))() etc. Il. 6.52 et al. : χ« /’
3)) cf. [Hes.] fr. 30.16* θ /’ 3)) 16 ) Il. 24.458* et al. : 3 etc. Il. 1.573*
et al. : ) 3 [Hes.] Sc. 297*, 313*, cf. Od. 20.72 3 … ), Il. 6.324 ) 3 ,
Od. 20.72 3 … ) &! : $!() Il. 5.380* et al. : ’ $!() Il.
1.503* et al. : ’ (etc.) $! ! Il. 1.520* et al. 17 )
« Hes. Op. 548* : !)
etc. Il. 16.231* et al. : - etc. Il. 6.422* et al. : !)
- h.Apol. 441* : & h.Apol.
201* & 18 '! « etc. Il. 21.560* et al. : "« Il. 11.244* : ' ("*) etc. Il.
1.96* et al. : ' ("*) #A*))« etc. Il. 1.14* et al. 19 etc. Hes. Op. 798* et al. :
9 ( etc. Il. 15.157* et al. : 9

9 ( Il. 13.794*, Od. 16.50* : Il. 2.714* et al. :
Il. 20.128*, Od. 1.71*, 7.198*, cf. Od. 12.125* : * etc. Il. 1.357* et al. : *
cv h.Hom. 17.3* et al., cf. * 1φ( : 9
* M cf. Il. 13.826*
* 6H (, cf. Hes. Th. 368 L« ** T(1« 20 χ« λ Il. 2.239* et al. : λ
7 Il. 1.235* et al. : ( *« etc. Il. 21.412* et al. : $’ $ etc. Il. 1.530 = h.Hom. 1.15 et
al. : * [Hes.] Sc. 321* = 392* : etc. Il. 24.514* et al. 21 C Od. 15.23* et al. :
C ( * Il. 21.391 et al., cf. Od. 18.145–6 C … | ( * : 3 Il. 7.156* et al. :
Il. 9.332* et al. : ¹ ) cv Il. 17.464* : ¹ ) λ ) )
= h.Herm. 63, cf. ¹ ) λ φ ) ,
¹ ) λ 1 )) 22 $))’ Ρ () Il. 1.281* et al. : $U<« Il. 15.6* et al. : $))’ Ρ ’ $U<«
Od. 9.288 : "*« Il. 24.782* et al. 23 K " cf. Il. 12.468* K " : Cμ
K " cf. Od. 7.135, 8.80, 23.88, h.Dem. 188, h.Herm. 380 : K5( φ« vvcc v Il. 9.582
C ""Ω« K5( φ«* ) 24 3 Il. 1. 594* et al. : /) h.Herm. 15* :
etc. Il. 18.88* et al. : R)" Od. 3.208* et al. : R)" cf. Hes. Op. 379 Ν!
R)" 25 @! Il. 1.105* : @! Od. 3.419* et al. : E
« @! cf.
h.Herm. 111 : /) h.Herm. 242* : $* Od. 1.336* et al.
15 IG XIV 2557.2 (Epigr.Gr. 1032 Kaibel) [_ _ _ μ«] S[(

_ _ _] 17–19 Call.
Jov. 87–88 (cf. p. 117) 19 Arat. 263 (cf. p. 87) 20 Call. Dian. 25 φ) $7
: P.Oxy. VII 1015.4–5 (cf. p. 105–107) 23 cf. E. Ion 220–21 « ) K -|
"
) ) # <C*>

15 )1 M | 3)) L 17 & E : σ & Bergk 18 3 )5 M
20 λ om. M | 1 Chalcondyles A B f L3 Q R1, om. O L2 P (sed scriptum erat in principio
vs. 21) R2 21 ¹ « E T 22 &( M 25 /) corr. ex /)( L
EI! E"MHN 167
D W ¹ $"*)(! ’ C)9(! 1 9

(!
"! ( * () (,
!) !λ "!· :μ« ’ 1« ¹μ«
$ 7!« )!! λ C 3·
!1") -( ’ S7!, C S&. 30
/ , φκ *!!, / 1 μ« ' (,
$!!( φ!· * *, )μ Ν ;
*) R! * !!, /)« R ! &@!·
$))’ F! !’ « )"@· Rφ)*« 3!!9(
C’ $7!· !L @! S7!«. 35
F ") ρ, λ ")" μ μ 1 (φ·
26 D W ¹ Il. 13.443* : $"*)(!() Od. 22.360* : D W ¹ $"*)(!() Od. 7.19* (3)

¹ $"*)(! : 1 9 (!() Il. 2.788* et al. : ’ C)9 (! 1 9 (!() Od. 18.239* et al.
27 "! ( etc. Il. 16.151* et al. : () Il. 2.92* et al. : * Il. 18.290* et al. :
* cf. Od. 24.416 * (), Od. 22.204 et al. 3! * etc. :
v Il. 10.467* et al. : ( h.Herm. 232* : () ( cf. Il. 14.347
() (etc.) cc
(()) 28 ! Il. 15.570* et al. : !λ "! cf. [Hes.] fr. 315.1 : 1« Il.
v h.Herm. 145*
20.72* (! « 1« E
«) : :μ« ’ 1« cc 29 cf. Od. 22.207
κ ’ [sc. Athena] #O!L« 7(! Ω λ 3: )!! Od. 18.163* et al. :
C Il. 12.69* et al. : Il. 1.25* et al. : 3 etc. Il. 1.552 et al. 30 !1")
h.Herm. 257* : -( Il. 17.629* et al. : -( Od. 4.260*, cf. Il. 23.20* et al. (-( ) : ’ Il.
4.405* et al. : S& cf. Hes. Op. 258* S& 31 / Il. 23.19* et al., cf. Il. 10.277
et al. (imperf.) : φκ *!! cf. Hes. Th. 259, 355 φκ 7 etc. : μ« Il. 1.468* et al. :
μ« ' ( cf. h.Herm. 436* μ« ' 32 $!!( etc. Il. 8.488* (corr.) et al. :
$!!( φ! cf. Od. 9.466 $!! ξ φ)!# ' ! φ( (Od. 5.394, 23.233) :
* Od. 5.490* et al. : * * h.Herm 155*, 269* : )* Il. 18.570* et al. : Ν
h.Herm. 40*, 52* : )μ Ν h.Dem. 16 33 *) etc. Il. 5.295* et al. 34
Il. 1.533* et al. : « cf. Il. 20.10, Od. 8.56 et al. « … : )"@ Il. 4.122* et al. :
Rφ)*« Il. 13. 236 35 C’ Il. 1.95* et al. : !L Il. 1.76* et al. : !L etc. Il. 16.850*
et al. : @! Il. 2.702* et al. : S7!« etc. Il. 1.503* et al. 36 = Hes. Op. 365: F Il.
1.113* et al. : ") Il. 18.302* et al. : ρ Il. 16.484* et al. : ") ρ Il. 15.97
") « F(, cf. Il. 3.431 et al. φ « ρ : Il. 1.112* et al. : 1 (φ() Od. 9.238* et
al. : μ 1 (φ Od. 22.220 1 (φ
27 [Theoc.] 25.132* "*! # () ( 28 Semon. 18 λ !) " b« ³«

† (« 31 / 1 cf. Opp. Hal. 3.250* : Nonn. D. 9.202*, 44.222*, 46.120 s
κ &!, / 1«* 32 A.R. 3.132 ))ξ« Ν *
26 C)9(! Parisiensis (Stephanus) : C)(! codd. 28 ! 1) M 29 )! M D :

)!! At cett. 30 !1") P | ’ M 31 / 1 codd. : / Mat-
thiae 32–33 ita interpunxit Agar 33 !!λ codd. (R! * !! M) : Q!! Matthiae,
Tyrrell 34 F! pro F! E 35 !1 # ξ Radermacher 36 ") B f | μ om.
> | 1 (φ codd., cf. Hes. Op. 365 : 1 (φ Barnes | !α μ π! )5 ( )φ*
p) μ !/ L P C L2 L3 L4 O P R1 R2
168 YMNO!
_ ()!(« )7« 3!! 3/

&@!’· ν ξ 9
(« * ) )μ $«.
γ« Ν ’ 3φ( λ / !λ Ϊ’ $φ 9(! $ «
40 r5 F! φ μ Ν .
3’ †$()7!« )φ) ) !7
’ <* (! S ! )@ /)@(«.
³« ’ ²*’ % L *( ! 7!
$ « Ρ λ ! φ! ,
37 Il. 1.55* et al. : _ Il. 1.78* et al. : ()!(« etc. h.Dem 228* : )7« cf.
Il. 4.433* )« : ()!(« )7« h.Dem. 230* : 3!! Il. 10.453 et al.
38 &@!() h.Apol. 192* &@!(), cf. Il. 21.27* &1« : - Il. 9.692* : ν Od. 21.237 et al.
(ν «) : 9 (« cf. Hes. Op. 687* : ν ξ 9 (« cf. Il. 4.170 F 9
(«, Il. 22.55 ν
κ λ !L 9 (« : * Il. 4.182* et al. : * Il. 4.36* et al. : ) Il. 1.156* et al. : )
)* Il. 21.447 et al. : $« etc. Il. 9.191* et al. : )μ $« etc. Il. 18.570* (K* …) et
al., cf. Il. 1.473 )μ $« 39 —« Il. 1.304* et al. : Ν ’ Il. 1.148* et al. : γ« Ν ’ 3φ(
etc. Il. 2.265* et al., cf. Il. 1.33 et al. γ« 3φ(o), Il. 1.188 et al. γ« φ : γ« Ν ’ 3φ( λ Il.
1.584*, h.Herm. 278*, 293*, 409* : / ! Il. 1.14* et al. : Ϊ’ Il. 1.158* et al. : / !λ Ϊ’
$φ 9 (! cf. Il. 18.23 $φ 9 (! ξ / !, Il. 18.123 $φ 9 (! / !, Od. 14.351
5/ !Rv, cvv , $φ 9 (! : $ « Il. 7.268* et al. 40 cf. h.Herm. 34; Ν5 Il. 1.220* et
al. : F! … cf. Il. 24.246 7cR * cvv F! : () Il. 2.588* : Il. 1.570* et
al. : φ Il. 1.13* et al. : * etc. Il. 21.218* et al. : φ μ Ν h.Herm.
52* 41 3’ Il. 1.22* et al. : ) Il. 10.334* et al. : !7 Il. 23.834* et al. : )
!7 etc. cf. Il. 23.361 et al. )* !( 42 S ! ) @ etc. h.Hom. 19.43*,
[Hes.] fr. 209.5* et al. : /)@(« h.Herm. 48* 43 ²*’ Il. 8.230* et al. : ³« ’ ²*’ Od.
4.335* et al. : % L Od. 21.165* et al. : ! Il. 22.313* et al. : ! Tyrt. 12.25, cf.
Kμ ! Il. 4.106* et al. : 7! etc. Il. 4.502* et al. 44 $ « etc. Il. 5.649* et al. :
! φ! Od. 17.486* : etc. Hes. Op. 178* et al.
37 Pi. P. 3.46 )7« … »! *!«, ‘Linus’ apud Stob. 3.1.70

« $!«
)7« 38 S. Ichn. 299–300, Nic. Al. 560 (cf. p. 83, 88) 39 [Orph.] A. 605
φ* ξ / !λ Ν * 44 Mimn. 1.7 φ « $φλ λ ! -
: Bacch. 1.178–79 Ρ φ* |μ !
37 M | ()!« B f R1 | 3/ Ruhnkenius : ρ/ M : / D p (¹ corr. in / T)

Chalcondyles : ¹/ E : / L P 38 &@!· ν D : &@! ξ M : &@!’α ν At
«
(cett.) | « p x | * Hermann : * r codd. : * # r Wolf 1 | $« E T
41 $()7!« codd. : $)7!« Hermann (3# Ν )7!« van Herwerden) : $-
7« Stephanus : $()@!« Ruhnkenius : $(7!« Barnes : $)7!« Agar :
r
$( @!« Evelyn-White : fort. $ )7!« 42 Ω in textu, in marg. f 2 ³«
$# <* M : P | S ! @ )@(« E L : S ! @ )@(« T (( in lacuna adiecit T2) :
S ! @ )@(« P | versum cruce notat P 43 7!( B 44 λ Raderm-
acher : λ codd. : λ Barnes
EI! E"MHN 169
’ Ρ (! $’ Sφ) $ , 45

γ« Ϊ’ 3« λ 3 7 1« E
«.

< ’ Ν ’ ! Ω * « ),
7« /)@(«.
$φλ ξ !! "μ« !! '9
!,
λ 7/« ( ’, λ ξ &μ - $φ, 50
' ξ () S 1!! / «.
C λ κ <, φ μ Ν
)7 ) 7& «· π ’ Kμ / μ«
45 # Ρ Il. 22.374 : Sφ) Il. 5.696* et al. : $’ Sφ) Il. 20.341*, 5.127, 15.668 et al. :
(! $# Sφ) cf. Od. 9.387–88 γ« Sφ)) … /)ó …
46 3« Il. 11.652* et al. : 3 Il. 1.294* et al. : 3« λ 3 cf. Od. 2.272 3 3«
: 7 cf. Od. 3.194* et al. 7! : 1« etc. Cypr. 15.4*, [Hes.] fr. 10(a).30* : E
«
Il. 20.72* et al. : 1« E
« etc. Hes. Th. 938* 47
< Il. 4.460 et al. : # Ν # Il. 2.45*
et al. : @ Od. 5.162* et al. : ! @ cf. Il. 24.109 )=!λ @ : * « etc.
Il. 10.467 48 Il. 8.94* et al. 49 $φλ () Il. 2.45* et al. : $φλ ξ Od.
13.431 et al. : "ó« Il. 3.375* et al. : vcv "ó« cf. Od. 22.362 cv "ó«, Od.
14.24 "* : !! cf. Od. 24.177 W(« # !!*, Il. 1.486 Kμ # Q -
!!* : !! Il. 1.608 : '9
! Il. 24.165* 50 ( () Hes. Th.
583*, cf. Il. 9.207 et al. : &* Il. 5.730* et al. : λ ξ &* cf. Il. 5.731* Kμ ξ &* : -
Il. 4.110* : λ ξ &μ - cf. Kμ ξ &μ - Il. 5.731* et al., cf. Il. 9.187 λ #
$ 1 &μ _ 51 ' Il. 2.719* et al. : ' Il. 7.149* et al. : S Od. 9.441* et
al. : / « Od. 21.407* / 7 : 1!! / « cf. Od. 21.407 !!
v,cvv,cvv, / 7 52 C Il. 1.464* et al. : C λ 7 Il. 4.124* et al. :
C λ κ < Il. 18.609* et al. : φ μ Ν cf. h.Herm. 40 53–54 cf.
Od. 21.410–11 < 9
# Ν / λ )"Ω 7!
«. | π # Kμ )μ Ν!,
/)* )( C7 53 « h.Dem. 399* (suppl.), Thgn. 1.453* et al. : / ó« Il.
3.363* et al. π ’ Kμ / ó« = h.Herm. 419
45 A.R. 3.1018–19 $ « Sφ) : Opp. C. 3.32* ( λ μ« $! !) $#

Sφ) $ , cf. 3.90 : Nonn. D. 5.342 : Opp. C. 4.143 ')!!( $ 7
46 Ϊ# 3« λ 3 cf. Zenob. I 77 (Leutsch-Schneidewin I p. 27) : A.R. 4.103 3# 3«
ξ λ 3 ² ) !!! 48 Q.S. 13.96 (! | Hdt. 1.47.3
/)@(«* : Paul.Sil. Descriptio Ambonis 118 (= V, p. 364 Veh) s
φ /)@(« : Emp. 76.2 ) /)1 51 laudat Antig. Mir. 7
51–4 A.R. 4.906–909 (cf. p. 116–17)
45 # Ρ scripsi : ν Ρ M f2m (Barnes) : θ Ρ > : ψ« Ρ p | (!() p At | $ λ M D

r
L P p : $)1 E T Lm Pm 46 7! E 47 )"Ω, f 2Ω Dm
48 7« codd. : 7« Matthiae | codd. : Allen |
2
Barnes : W codd. : ) Pierson 50 7/« ~ edd. | ξ om. M B f
51 () Antig. Mir. 7 : !φ@« codd. 52 φ codd. : / Schneidewin |
ita interpunxit Stephanus (cf. 40, Il. 18.609) 53 « codd. : )« Allen Halliday coll.
419 et 501
170 YMNO!
! ) "(!· μ« ’ Kμ )μ Ν

55 < C!/(« @«, 1
π"(λ )9(! "*) !,
$φλ : K ( λ M )))
³« « % &! ' 9 ( φ)*(,
D ’ C κ S ) <&·
60 $φ*)« λ $) @ 1φ(«,
λ « ρ (1« )"(«.
λ ξ σ -, ξ φ !λ Ν)) .
54 cf. Il. 18. 569–70; ! ) etc. Il. 2.309* et al. : ! ) "(! etc. Il. 2.334*,
Hes. Th. 840 et al. : ó« Il. 5.191* et al. : μ« ’ Il. 5.78* et al. : Ν etc. Od. 1.326* et al. :
)μ Ν etc. Od. 1.155* et al. : Kμ )μ Ν Il. 18.570*, cf. Od. 21.411 π # Kμ )μ
Ν! 55 C!/(« etc. Il.12.192* et al. : @« etc. Il. 5.129* et al. : 1 Il.
4.243* et al. : Od. 8.262* : 1 cf. Il. 2.872* et al. 1 1 ( : 1
π"( cf. Od. 8.262–63 $φλ ξ |
" 56 cf. Il. 4.5–6 C ’ »
K (« & 6H ( | « !! ")7( $ 1 : )9 (! Hes. Op.
115 : ! et al. cf. Od. 18.153* « 57 $φλ : etc. cf. h.Hom. 7.1 et
al. : K ( etc. Hes. Th. 624* et al. : : K ( etc. Il. 5.419 et al. cf. Il. 5.756 Z
()
… K (, [Hes.] fr. 234.2 K (« Z1« : M ))) cf. Hes. Th. 454 6H (
/ !)* etc. 58 ³« « [Hes.] Sc. 119, cf. Il. 5.806 et al. ³« μ « :
φ)*( etc. Il. 14.163* et al. 59 7 etc. Il. 6.151* et al. : S ) cf. R
)* etc. Od. 9.364* et al. : <& Naupact. 1.1* <*&, cf. < )7(
S& Il. 22.415 60 $φ*)« etc. Il. 6.499* : etc. Il. 7.321, Od. 17.437,
14.441, [Hes.] fr. 204.114 et al. : $) Il. 1.23* et al. : λ $) etc. Il. 1.23* et al. : 1φ(«
etc. Il. 9.560*; $)* Il. 24.447, Od. 11.357 et al. : @ 1φ(« cf. Od. 4.657 @-
*«* etc. 61 cf. Il. 23.359 )"(« « , 23.485, 24.322, Od. 15.84
* C/) ξ )"7, 13.13, 217, [Hes.] fr. 200.5 (suppl.) : λ « etc. cf.
Il. 23.264 et al. λ ’ : ρ etc. Od. 19.18* et al. : (1« etc. Od. 4.89* et al. :
)"(« etc. Il. 23.267* 62 cf. Od. 1.151 ! ξ λ φ !λ Ν)) 7) : λ ξ
σ Od. 13.122* : - Od. 1.154* : φ ! etc. Il. 1.107* et al. : φ !λ Ν)) cf. Il. 2.241 et al.
φ !, $)) : etc. Il. 13.214* et al. : ξ φ !λ Ν)) cf. Il. 14.221 Ρ
φ !* !9
! ) »«* et al., Od. 2.92 et al. *« ¹ Ν)) ) »
55 Call. Aet. fr. 118.3* [< C]/(« 55–56 A.R. 1.457–59 (cf. p. 113–14) 60 A.R.
1.785 $) @# b 62 Q.S. 10.408 φ !λ # Ν)) : cf. [Theoc.]
25.62 *)
# Ρ *))#
54 "! D Chalcondyles : "!! p x 55 D * M 56 ") M

57 lacunam post hunc versum statuit Radermacher 58 ³« f2c (Ernesti) : χ codd. : θ
Clarke | % &! Clarke : ³ &! praeter f qui &! legit omnes : % &!
Barnes | λ ' ( M 59 S ) scripsi : S )μ M : S )κ p :
R )μ > : S )7( Schmitt | <& M (Stephanus in annot.) : S& ~
60 (ξ) codd. : # Ilgen
EI! E"MHN 171
λ κ ξ ( φ ¹ ) λ ) )

φ* )φ 7· ² ’ Ν &
Θ) ! κ C@« , 65
² *) L λ φ !, s φ«
φ)
! )(« μ« — 9 (.
#H)« ξ 3 /μ« # *
C! ’ b! λ Ϊ !, C Ν ’ E
«
P (« $φ R ! *, 70
3 "*« Ν" σ) 3/!
63 ( Hes. Th. 539 et al. : κ (etc.) ξ ( Il. 6.473* et al. : φ Il. 1.13*
et al. : ( φ Od. 17.333, cf. 19.100 : ¹ ) λ ) ) cf. h.Herm. 21
64 )φ 7 etc. Il. 2.88* et al. : φ* )φ 7 etc. Od. 23.144* et al. : ² ’ Ν Il.
6.154* et al. : Il. 12.300 et al. : & Il. 11.551* 65 Θ) Od. 22.2* :
! 7 cf. Od. 14.261 et al. ! « : Il. 6.377* 66 cf. Od. 483
T()/) φ* L λ φ !λ ² « : ² Od. 15.300* : *) Od. 4.453* et
al. : *) 1 Hes. Th. 589* et al. : λ φ ! Il. 2.301* et al. : s Od. 9.128* et al. : s
φ« cf. h.Herm. 195 1 φ« : s φ« | φ)
cf. Od. 3.73 et al. s )(-
!
« 67 ! Thgn. 1.893 : )(« *« etc. cf. Il. 8.486 1 ) et al. :
)(« μ« — 9 ( cf. Il. 15.324 )(« μ« $)) *, h.Herm. 290 )(«
μ« ' : μ« — 9 ( cf. h.Herm. 155, 400 68–69 cf. h.Hom. 31.15–16 : 3# Ν # Ρ
!7!« / !*& Ϊ λ b« | !!« 9 (! # C % *, Thgn.
1.997–98
« # #H)« ξ @/« b« | Ν )) …
68 #H)« Il. 7.421* et al. : #H)« ξ 3 cf. Il. 18.241 #H)« ξ 3 : /*«
Il. 3.127* et al., cf. h.Herm. 410 69 C! Il. 21.491*, cf. h.Herm. 84 : b! Il. 8.184*
et al. : C! # b! λ Ϊ ! Il. 23.8* $))# C« b! λ Ϊ ! : b! λ
Ϊ ! Il. 4.366* et al., cf. Il. 5.199, Il. 4.297 et al. : C Ν () Il. 2.103 70 P (« etc.
cf. Il. 14.226*, h.Apol. 216* : $φ h.Herm. 186, 228 : R ! * Od. 5.279* et al., cf. Il.
14.227 et al. R φ* : P (« … R ! * cf. Od. 19.338 K 7(« R
φ* 71 3 etc. Hes. Th. 432* et al. 3 : Il. 1.339* etc. :
Ν" etc. Il. 5.339* et al. : "*« Ν" cf. Il. 16.380–81 b | Ν" : σ) 3/-
! cf. Il. 9.232* σ) 3; "*« … σ) 3/! cf. Od. 12.265 " C)&
65 Pi. O. 7.32 C@« < $1 66–67 cf. Opp. H. 2.408–10 ³« « π * «
$κ )(U! /9( | ² * $U() … | '! « (cf. 2.404 1 «) : cf. A.R.
3.1197 )7« 1 « φ@ | A.R. 4.7 1/« *) 1 … (!
68–71 [Theoc.] 25.85–87 68 A.R. 3.1191 #H)« ξ Ν κ 1
71 Opp. H. 4.352* σ) 3/« : [Theoc.] 25.169* σ) 3/
64 ² # Stephanus : Ρ# codd. : χ # Hermann 65 Θ) D M : τ p (o L2) : τ x

67 φ)(λ M V (Ernesti) : φ()(λ > p (praeter V), cf. 159 et 175 69 C Ν # codd. :
C Ρ# Barnes 70 M p x
172 YMNO!
"! * )« $ ( !« 1«.

* M« ¹μ« 1! « #A φ*(«
7 ’ $)(« $ "« 1 «.
75 )« ’ -) 5@ /
F/’ $! 5« – )(« ’ C )7 /(« –
$ 7!« ²)«, « *! R!,
« ’ R *!, ’ 3) Cμ« 3".
!) ’ C ’ 3 5 λ 5« 4)9 (! –
80 Νφ !’ ’ $*( ) 3 –
!! « λ !« R&«·
72 "! * cf. h.Herm. 27; "! * )« cf. Il. 16.151* "! ( ) : -
1« etc. Il. 2.532* et al. 73 * Il. 16.266* et al. : M« ¹*« cf. h.Herm. 1 :
#A φ*(« etc. Il. 2.103* et al. : 1! « #A φ*(« etc. Il. 24.24* et al. (1! «* of
Artemis Od. 11.198); #A φ*(« etc. Il. 2.103* et al. ( * ) #A φ*9 () : M«
¹μ« 1! « #A φ*(« cf. h.Hom. 29.7 #A φ* :μ« λ M« ¹
74 7 () Il. 6.244* et al. : $)(« etc. Il. 17.62* et al. : 7 ’ $)(« …"« cf.
7 " $)« Il. 11.678 : "« 1 « etc. Od. 15.235* et al., cf. " …
1 Il. 20.497, 23.775 : $)(« … "« 1 « [Hes.] fr. 43a.23 " $[)]«
1 [] 75 5@ / cf. h.Herm. 347, 350 76 F/() Od. 19.436* :
$! 5« Thgn. 1.858* : )(« # C )7 /(«, cf. Od. 4.455, Hes. Th. 547,
560 77 $ Il. 20.80* et al. : 7!« Od. 9.524* et al. : « (etc.) *! Il. 23.583* :
R! Il. 13.834* et al. 78 R Il. 23.726* : « (etc.) ’ R Il. 13.721* : C*« Il.
1.137* et al. : 3" Il. 13.665* et al. : Cμ« 3" Il. 17.541 : # 3) Cμ« 3"
cf. Od. 14.356 λ ξ ) σ« 3" 79 !) cf. h.Herm. 139* : C Il.
6.308* et al. : λ 5« Il. 1.186 et al. : 4)9(! Il. 18.86* et al. : λ 5« 4)9(! Od.
3.38*, cf. Od. 4.38 80 3 cf. h.Herm. 440*, h.Hom. 7.34*, [Hes.] fr. 204.45*; cf.
Od. 11.374* et al. ! ) 3 81 Cf. Il. 10.467 ! 5« * « (« ’
()« R&« : « cf. Il. 10.466* : R&« Il. 1.234* et al.
72 cf. E. Hipp. 73, 76–77 )Ω $ 7 « : Pamprep. 4.5 (I p. 118 GDRK) Ν)!«
$ ( ![] : cf. Rhian. AP 12.93.4 (3211 HE) () Ν« $ ( ! 75 Q.S.
7.116* λ 5@= /@ ) 76 Nonn. D. 37.579* )(« # C )7 /(« (sc.
A μ« )*(«) 77–78 S. Ichn. 121–22 (cf. p. 80–81) 78 Nic. Th. 433* * #
3) 81 Call. Dian. 202 1 !« R&«
72 $ !« x D Chalcondyles 74 $)« M 76 F/# Hermann, cf. 218, 342, 351 :

F/( codd. | # om. P | ita interpunxi 78 R! D P : R At cett. | @« M
79 # C # 3 5 Matthiae versu 80 secl. : # C # 3 5 D p : 3 5 spatio relicto E T
(# C in lacuna adscripsit T) : # 3 5 spatio relicto L : C # 3 5 P : # C W5λ
Postgate apud Allen1 79–81 ita interpunxi 80 ! B N V : 1 M
81 !=* E T : !! L
EI! E"MHN 173
* !7!« ()« Ν ) 8)(«

$")"« Kμ !!λ 7! !) φ
C! )!, 1« #A φ*(«
3!!, P ( ² ( $), 85
s ’ *« )/κ ²μ C 7!«.
μ ξ *(! $! $)κ
¹ ’ #O/(!μ )/(·
μ * « !φ( M(« « ¹*«·
τ Ρ« φ ! «, 1) »), 90
_ )7!« σ’ r φ 9(!·
82 * cf. h.Herm. 73 : ()« (etc.) Hes. Th. 576* et al. : 8)(« etc. Il. 2.455* et al.
83 Kμ !!() Il. 2.784* et al. : Kμ !!λ 7! !) φ cf. Il. 23.340* et al.
( ) )) 84 C! Il. 21.491* et al. : )! Od. 19.520* : 1« cf. h.Herm.
46 : #A φ*(« cf. h.Herm. 73 85 cf. Od. 10.166 C Ω !!( W«
)1« : 3!! cf. Il. 4.530* et al. : P ( Hes. Op. 1* : ² ( cf. Od. 15.506* :
$) etc. Il. 3.32* et al. : ² ( $) cf. Hes. Op. 828 K "!«
$)* 86 s () Od. 3.73* et al. : *« etc. Il. 5.501* et al. : )/7 etc. Od.
19.448* et al. : )/κ ²* Od. 4.393* et al., cf. h.Herm. 143 : *« )/κ ²* cf.
Od. 1.309 **« ² et al. 87 Il. 3.109* et al. : *(! Il. 3.21* et al. :
$)7 etc. Il. 9.534* et al. : $! $)( cf. Il. 18.561 (!φ)9
! ) " !
$)7*, Od. 6.293 ) ’ $)7 88 ¹ etc. Il. 8.241* et al. : ¹ cf.
Il. 8.313 ¹ *)**, cf. Od. 17.5, 19.187 : )/( Il. 2.697* et al. 89 μ (etc.)
* « !φ( cf. Il. 5.276 et al. μ * « !()* : !φ( Il. 1.84 et al. :
M(« « cf. Il. 14.327 [(« « : M(« « ¹*« cf. Od. 11.576*
f(« « ¹*, h.Apol. 182 et al. [(« « ¹*« 90 τ Il. 2.796* et
al. : Ρ« (etc.) Il. 2.669* et al. : φ cf. Od. 24.227 φ** : 1) ») Hes. Op. 427,
cf. h.Herm. 112 ») 91 σ’ Ν Il. 2.228* : Il. 13.562* : φ 9 (! Od.
10.507*
85 Opp. C. 4.433 ($ ) )!"( $)*
82 ()« $ )μ 8)(« ~ (Ν ) Stephanus, edd.) : () $ ) κ M unde
() $ )) — ( Allen Halliday : ()# $# Ν ) — (« Radermacher (— (
idem CR 1933, 156) 83 $")"« codd. : $")1« Pierson : $!φ)« Hermann :

C")"« Schneidewin : $")« Headlam 85 ² ( P | $) codd., tuetur
van Herwerden coll. 239 : $)1 Windisch coll. 361 et 557 : ) (scil. ² («
) "7) Kuiper 86 C 7!« M p Lm Pm (-- Lm), recepit Wolf 2 :
r
C κ« —« D L P (f C 7!« Pm), φ@« pro —« Martin : C 7!« —« E T :
$)) 7!« Ilgen : C κ« —« Boissonade 87 M (Barnes) : * ~ :
Ω Gemoll | $! M : F! ~ : $ μ Gemoll | $)κ codd. : $)
«
r
f jj (
Gemoll 88 S/(! jj )/ M 90 1) ») Allen Sikes, Radermacher :
1) <1) M : 1)« c« ~ 91 )7!« Ilgen : )L 7!« M :
)L 7!« (¹-) ~ | post hunc versum lacunam statuit Groddeck
174 YMNO!
Ω κ Ω ρ λ φμ« $ 1!«

λ !» Ρ 7 ")9 ( μ !μ C.
*!! φ« !! " Fφ (.
95 )) ’ R ( ! λ C)« )L«
λ ’ $* 7)! 1« E
«.
S φ( ’ « 1 ( L<
π ), / ’ R « ( *«·
π ξ ! κ !"7! )7(,
100 P))« ( M( Ν «.

« ’ #A)φμ μ :μ« Ν) « ¹μ«
d" #A*))« "« -)! C @«.
92 Il. 13.734* et al., cf. h.Herm. 133 : @ Il. 4.255* et al. : $ 1!« etc. Il. 3.76* et
al. 93 Ρ 7 Il. 13.319 et al. : C Il. 1.218* et al. : μ !μ C cf. Il. 6.446 μ C
et al. 94 *!! etc. Il. 2.129* et al. : ( Il. 2.117* et al. : Fφ ( cf. Il. 11.55
φ« φ)« : " Fφ ( Il. 23.260* 95 )) () Il. 1.35* et al. :
! * Il. 5.525* et al. = φ ! * (cf. ! * e.g. Od. 23.299) : R (
! * h.Hom. 27.4*, cf. h.Herm. 70 R ! *, Il. 1.157 Κ ! * : )-
1« etc. Il. 16.183* et al. 96 ’ $* cf. Od. 12.159 )’ $* :
7)! Il. 10.564* et al. : 1« E
« cf. h.Herm. 46 97–98 1< | π ) cf. Il.
10.252 ) 1< || 97 S φ( … 1< cf. Il. 10.83 et al. 1 ’ S φ( : «
Il. 3.188* : $" !( 1< cf. Od. 11.330 L< … Ν" « : 1< Il. 7.433* et al. 98 / ’
Od. 19.432* et al. : Il. 13.86* et al. 99 cf. [Hes.] Sc. 33 : Il. 4.332* : π (etc.) ξ
Od. 8.289* et al. : ! 7 (etc.) Il. 8.285* et al. : !"7! Il. 2.48* et al. : Il.
2.174* et al. : )7( (etc.) Od. 9.144* et al. : )7( h.Hom. 32.8, 17 100 cf. Il. 2.566
et al. : ( Il. 2.548* et al. : Ν « Il. 1.75* et al. 101
« Il. 7.434* et al. :
* (etc.) Il. 2.659* et al. : Ν) « ¹*« (etc.) Il. 6.437* : :μ« Ν) « ¹*« [Hes.] Sc. 320
et al. 102 d" h.Apol. 447* : d" #A*))« Il. 5.509* et al. : "« cvv
C @« (etc.) Il. 10.292* et al., 20.495 "*« cvv C @«, Od. 11.289 "*«
C @« : -)! Il. 9.349* et al.
96 Pi. fr. 107a.4–5 $ :@ $* 99 cf. A.R. 1.1228 π ξ 7(«
$1 … 101 Pi. O. 10.44–45 :μ« Ν) « ¹*«, [Theoc.] 25.42*, [Orph.] A. 522*
93 ( D | ")9 ( codd. : ")9 (« Weiher, cf. Franke in annot. 94 φ«

!! Chalcondyles : φ!λ 3!(!) (3! L) codd. : φ« 3!! Cobet 98
M 99 ξ E | ! 9
D 100 ( p (Barnes) : ( M :
( D Chalcondyles : ( P : ( L : ( T :
priore ex ( corr. E : 7 Ilgen : Gemoll, cf.
Od. 1.276 : ( Càssola | ita interpunxit West (Ν «· Wolf 2) | versum cruce
notavit P
EI! E"MHN 175
$
« ’ b « Κ) K5)
λ )(L« $ « )«.
3# λ σ "(« φ* " "« 1 « 105
λ « ξ !)!! « Κ) $ *« Κ!«
)μ « # ' !7 1 ,
!L # φ* <1) )), μ« # /(·
φ(« $)μ R& ')Ω )5 !7 ) ,
Ν )9 (, Ν ξ μ« $7· 110
103 $
« (etc.) Od. 3.383* et al. : b (etc.) Il. 3.145* et al. : « Κ) cf. h.Herm. 106 :
« Κ) K5) cf. h.Hom. 134, 399 104 () Il. 2.92* et al. : $ -
« (etc.) Il. 6.477* et al. : )« cf. Od. 11.539* et al. ( ’ $!φ)*) ),
h.Dem. 417 ($’ ¹ *) ) 105 3’ Od. 10.87*, cf. h.Herm. 252 : "(« Il.
13.493* : "« 1 « cf. h.Herm. 74 106 cf. Il. 11.677–78 )(U !)!-
! -) ))7, | 7 " $)« : λ « (etc.) Od. 6.89* et al. : !-
)!! cf. h.Herm. 240* : « Κ) cf. h.Herm. 103* : $ *« (etc.) Il. 23.200* et al. : $ *«
Κ!« (etc.) cf. Od. 1.27* $ * _! et al. 107 cf. Il. 14.348 )* # ' !7 ξ
* # K , 21.351 ξ )*« ξ 1 ξ 1 , Od. 4.603 o ) 3 ξ
)μ« )1«, ξ 1 : )μ « etc. Il. 2.776* : « etc. cf. Il.
21.204* : 1 etc. Il. 21.351* et al. 108 !L # Il. 12.181* et al. : φ* Il. 15.530* et
al. : <1) (etc.) Il. 23.327* et al. : <1) )) Od. 19.64*, cf. Il. 8.507 et al. : *« Il. 6.182* et
al. : Il. 10.401* : μ« ’ /( cf. Od. 11.531 <φ« #
@( : /( (etc.) Il. 3.61* et al. : /( cf. Hes. Th. 160 ()( ξ 7)
φ !! /(*, h.Herm. 511 !! /( 109 φ(« Hes. Op. 435* :
$)* Od. 6.291* : R& Il. 4.484* : φ(« $)μ R& cf. Hes. Th. 30 φ(« ()«
R& : ')@ Il. 9.216* et al. : !7 ) Il. 4.485* et al. 110 Ν (etc.) Hes. Op. 786* et al. :
Ν )9 ( cf. Il. 18.600 et al. Ν )9 (! : )9 ( cf. Il. 1.238 et al.
)9 (« : *« (etc.) Od. 8.249* et al. : $7 Il. 9. 609* et al. : μ« $7 Hes. Th. 696,
($9
!!9 ( Hes. Th. 862), cf. Od. 12.369 πL« $7 : Ν ξ μ« $7 cf. Od.
16.290 = 19.9, 19.20 μ« b # $7
103 D.P. 192 Cξ " (μ« « Κ)* / : Nonn. Paraphr. 10.6* «
Κ) … ¹ (cf. 10.32* « Κ) … ") 105 Call. Cer. 136 φ " "*«
105–6 [Theoc.] 25.86–87 # 7)
) | "(« $* # Κ) !( «
108 Bion fr. 1.2* !φ # / 109 cf. Pi. fr. 94b.7–8 / ! # -
) ! Ρ # $)μ | φ« S/! | cf. Opp. Hal. 4.482 (C) ! !7 ) * :
[Orph.] A. 608 (S<) $ ! !7 )* 110 A.R. 2.736–37 $7 … $! : Q.S.
10.62 μ« # Ν $<>7 (cf. 2.224, 10.503) | cf. Mosch. 3.92* ) μ $7
103 $
« codd. : $
« Ilgen coll. h.Apol. 520 | # -) D 106 λ « codd. :
C« van Herwerden | !)!! corr. ex -! M 108 /( codd. : 1( M : /9
(
Ilgen 109 )5 ~ () L) : )) M : # F)) Radermacher : ) Postgate
apud Allen2 | !7 )
codd. : !)
Ludwich, cf. Radermacher, p. 92 n. 1 | post hunc versum
lacunam statuit Schneidewin (cf. Kuhn 1886, 36) 110 Ν corr. ex Ϊ M |
Ν ξ M, recepit Wolf 1 : $ # Ν ~ | μ« $
M | lacunam in medio versu
statuit Schmitt
176 YMNO!
E
« @! 7 # $ .
)) ξ ») ) λ "* )

σ) )"Ω ( (· ) ξ φ)μ<
()*! φ! ¹! μ« .
115 Rφ ξ $ "( ) Hφ!,
*φ # K" /« Q) « "« s) 1 &
« Ν/ *« – 1« ¹ 3) ))7 –
$φ « # λ /λ ") φ!@!«·
111 cf. h.Herm. 25 : Il. 9.593* et al. : # $ * cf. Od. 10.358 et al. $
112 )) (etc.) Il. 1.351* et al. : ») cf. Il. 21.364, Od. 18.308, h.Herm. 136
<1) : ) cf. [Hes.] fr. 150.9, 18 [K] λ P[]
113 σ) (etc.) Il. 17.756* et al. : )"@ Il. 12.452* et al. : ( () etc. Od. 9.240* et al. :
( (etc.) Od. 4.89* et al. : ) (etc.) Il. 6.319* et al. : φ)*< Il. 16.123* : ) ξ
φ)*< cf. Il. 23.228* 1! ξ φ)*< 114 ()*! Il. 22.407* : ¹! cf. Hes. Th. 830* ¹-
! : *« (etc.) Il. 2.415* et al. : μ« cf. Il. 6.182 μ« «
, 11.596 et al. μ« , Il. 18.225–27 … * : Il. 1.78* et
al. 115 Rφ Il. 11.357* et al. : Rφ … | *φ () … Il. 4.220–21* : $ Od.
7.13* et al. : Hφ!* Il. 2.426 et al. : ) Hφ! [Hes.] Sc. 244*, cf. Od. 8.286 -
) Hφ!*, Il. 18.143 ’ 6Hφ! )/(, Od. 8.345 6Hφ! )-
* : "( … Hφ! cf. Il. 21.366–67 $κ | Hφ! "(φ 116 *φ ’ Il.
1.509* et al. : K" /« h.Hom. 33.12* K" /( : Q) « "« Il. 21.448* et al. : s) * cf.
Q) Il. 4.213 : 1 &* Il. 5.694 et al. (τ!) 1 & 117 « (etc.) Il. 3.236* et al. : Ν/
Il. 10.261* et al. : Ν/ *« Od. 11.191* : 3) Il. 2.480* : ¹ 3) Il. 14.158* et al. :
))7 (etc.) Il. 4.278* et al. : vv,c ¹ 3) cc cf. ! μ« ¹ 3) ) Il.
14.158* et al., h.Herm. 426 κ ¹ Q! φ7 118 $φ « (etc.) Il. 3.179* et
al. : $φ « () Il. 3.208* et al. : Il. 8.94* et al. : λ Il. 2.308 et al. : λ …
") cf. Il. 8.94 ")@ : / Il. 4.482* et al. : /λ ") etc. Il. 9.541* et al., cf.
h.Herm. 298 : φ!@!« (etc.) Il. 4.227* et al.
111–113 A.R. 1.1182–84 (cf. p. 115) 111–12 cf. A.R. 3.1034 =κ σ (7!« λ
"* ) (fort. λ ". Fränkel) 112 Opp. Hal. 3.393* λ "* ) 112–13 cf. [Orph.] A.
311 ») … ( 113 [Orph.] A. 1221 φ)μ« # $) $7 114 cf.
A.R. 4.763 φ1!« *« 115 cf. Hdt. 1.132.3, 2.39.2 et al. $ ! : Q.S.
1.793–94 λ κ ξ 5 « Hφ! φ)μ< S)7
(
111 1 x praeter P 112 ) > : ) M | ) Barnes : # C)

codd. 113 σ) codd. : σ Gemoll coll. Od. 18.309 114 φ! D’Orville, Her-
mann : φ1! E (Clarke) : φ1& cett. (ss. ! f2) 116 K" /« codd. (Kμ " / E) :
K" 1/« Ludwich : " 1/« Barnes : K " /« D’ Orville : Kμ " /« Shackle :
K φ« West | s) codd. : Q) Wolf 117–18 ita interpunxi
EI! E"MHN 177
) # 1) # « 7!«,

3 )
# 3 R& Ω () · 120
c # $φ# S")! !
! « ² λ ! λ ) s
/)!!· # C # λ /@ («.
WL« # <!! !φ)) λ 9
(,
³« 3 !! )/ * φ1!, 125
( μ κ λ Ν . C 3
E
« / *φ 1!! 3
))
λ ) λ 3!/! @ «
119 ) cf. Il. 4.113 $ )«* 120 3 ) etc. Il. 6.492*, 23.644* 3 et al. :
R& etc. Il. 14.358* (cf. h.Herm. 477) : 3 ) ’ 3 R& cf. Hes. Op. 382 3 ’ 3 )
&! : etc. Il. 11.776* et al. : Il. 12.283* et al. : () Il. 23.750* et al.,
cf. Il. 22.501 (* et al. 121 c cf. Od. 3.463* c : etc.
Il. 1.246* et al. : $φ’ S")! cf. Il. 1.465 et al. $φ’ S")! 3 etc.
122 ² Il. 11.245* : Il. 8.94* et al. : ! « ² λ ! cf. Od. 9.293
3 ! « , Hes. Th. 538; ) s Il. 4.149 et al. : λ ) s Il. 10.298* et
al. 123 () Il. 5.205* et al. : () etc. Il. 2.777* et al. : # λ /@ (« cf. Il. 13.565*
# λ («. 124 W1« (etc.) Il. 10.262*, Od. 14.134* : 9 ( etc. Il. 4.108* et al. : λ
9 ( cf. Il. 13.137* et al. $μ (« : !φ)) λ 9 ( cf. Hes. Th. 806* !φ-
) /@ 125 ³« 3 , cf. h.Herm. 508 ³« 3 λ : 3 Il. 15.99 et al.,
cf. Il. 2.435 et al. ( * : !! Od. 9.221 !! : φ1! Il. 4.484* et al.
126 ( * Il. 5.210* et al. : ( μ 7 Emp. 112.12* : Ν etc. cf. Il. 14.205* et al., h.Herm.
577 : C Il. 1.127* et al. : 3 Il. 1.531* et al. : C 3 Il. 3.273* et al., h.Herm.
528 127 E
«, cf. h.Herm. 1* : 1!! Il. 22.306* (= Od. 22.79*) : 3 Il.
12.283* et al. 128 )) Il. 23.359, cf. ) Od. 5.443 (= 7.282) : 3!/! cf. Od.
9.71 !/!* (ε« $) : @ Il. 9.123* et al. : « (etc.) Od. 15.140* et al.
119 A.R. 3.410 = 3.496 1 /) *, !* φ)* φ!* 121 Q.S.
1.613–14 σ « $φ# S")! Kξ μ« )*« | !)/ 9 (!
*« λ * 122 [Orph.] A. 626 !* … ¹ 124 [Theoc.]
25.270* <!! 125 Call. Dian. 132* )/ * | cf. [Theoc.] 25.20* (λ
φ1! 127 Hsch. / 209 / *φ 128 A.R. 1.365* )) λ )

119 ) ~ : « M : )« Ilgen | « M > : « p (« T) |
7!« codd. : 7!« edd. vet. : # * (! Ilgen 120 ~ 121 % M :

τ p | # $ # $φ# f | ! E : ! f 122 # ! M 123 3 -
M : ' D L P 124 # f | !φ)) At x (Stephanus) : !φ)
D p Chalcondyles : !φ)
M | λ Chalcondyles : 3 codd. : λ Barnes coll. 404
125 !! M : # (#) Ν!! (Ϊ!!) ~ : & Baumeister 126 Ν
codd. : Ν West 127 / *φ Stephanus in annot. : / φ M > : /
φ p | 1! >
178 YMNO!
)( )«· ) ξ « !( ' !(.

130 3# ²!(« !! 1« E
«·
Sκ 3 λ $* *
π’· $))# C# —« ¹ μ« $7
)# ¹ » ¹
«
«.
$)) ξ ( « Κ) K5) ,
135 (μ λ )), 7 # ρ5# $ ,
!
(« φ
«· λ ξ <1) # $ «
C)*# C) ( μ« # $9
.
C λ κ / « -! ,
!) ξ ( « #A)φμ "(,
129 )( )« cf. Il. 3.316 = 23.861 )7 « 9

/) 7 = )) ')*«, Od.
10.206 : ) Il. 23.373* etc. : « Il. 1.135* et al. : !( Od. 9.305 : ' !9 ( (etc.) Il.
1.606* et al. 130 ²!(« (et al.) Od. 22.412* : !! Il. 20.223* : 1« E
« cf.
h.Herm. 46 131 S7 (etc.) h.Dem. 277* (cf. h.Herm. 231) : S7 … | π’ cf. Od. 9.210
Sκ ’ π : S7 … 3 cf. Od. 4.441–42 … | S)@« S7 : Il. 2.319*
et al. : 3 Il. 5.796* et al. : λ $ (etc.) Il. 3.298* et al. : * (etc.)
Il. 1.352* et al.; Od. 5.73 λ $*« * : λ cvvc * (etc.) Il. 9.627* et al.
132 $))’ C’ —« Il. 7.263 et al. : *« (etc.) Il. 1.593* et al. : *« $7 Il. 2.276* et al. :
μ« $7 cf. Od. 2.103* et al. μ« $7 133 ¹ cf.
Il. 14.163* ¹ : ¹
«
« cf. Il. 3.371* et al. 4)κ Kμ 7 134 $))
Il. 16.60* et al. : ( Il. 4.112* et al. : (etc.) ξ ( Il. 3.293* et al. : «
Κ) K5) cf. h.Herm. 103 135 (ó (etc.) Il. 21.204* et al. : (μ (etc.)
Il. 8.380* et al. () λ ! !! : )) Il. 8.231* et al. : 7 Il. 8.26* et al.,
h.Herm. 488 : ρ5() Il. 1.387* et al. : $ cf. Od. 8.298* et al. $ 136 !
Il.
7.86* et al. : λ ’ Il. 3.461* et al. : <1) () Il. 21.364* et al. : $ « Il. 7.268* : …
$ « Il. 10.30 137 *« Il. 6.182* et al. : $9
cf. h.Herm. 106 138 C λ
7 Il. 6.178* et al. : C λ κ Il. 7.207 et al., Il. 16.198 («) : / « Od.
11.479* : / « cf. Od. 3.457 et al. : -! cf. Il. 8.370
<7!* : Il. 3.420* et al. 139 !) cf. h.Herm. 79 : ( () Il. 4.398* et
al. : "( (etc.) Il. 20.73* et al. : « #A)φμ "( cf. [Hes.] fr. 193.9* $’ #A)φ
"[], h.Hom. 1.3 ’ #A)φ) ) "7
130 Nic. Al. 258* 137 Q.S. 8.90* μ« $7 : cf. A.R. 3.531
! λ $ μ« )!!# $7 139 cf. Bacch. 8.26–27 [’ $ ]
R/! #A)φ
130 ²!(« codd. : F!(« van Herwerden | ! M D P : !! At cett. 132 π#
Ruhnkenius : - vel 9 - codd. | ¹ ~ : M om. ¹ 133 »
Barnes :
M : (# > f : ( p : 9
# (scil.
’) Clarke : # Tucker apud
Allen2 : Ludwich 136 om. M | φ
« Hermann coll. 385 ubi φ
« servat M : φ
« ~ :
!7 x« φ
« Gemoll (!7# '
« φ
« Burkert) | $ « codd. : $ « Ilgen
137 C) (" M 138 κ M : λ ~ ( add. A Chalcondyles) | (Κ)(! M
EI! E"MHN 179
$ κ # , * # $ ) 140

1/«· )μ ξ φ*« ) )7(«.
K))7(« # ρ5# σ« $φ (
R «, C « ¹ )/
« ² $"*)(!
Κ Κ ( $ @,
Cξ 1« )) · :μ« # 1« E
« 145
/λ« )7 3
Κ 9( S 9
) «, 1# S/)(.
1!« # Ν < (μ
_ !λ ""· C 1 —« # Κ.
!!« # Ν ) ) @/ 1« E
«· 150
! $φ# c« )«, 1
140 $ 7 Il. 9.213* : $ κ # cf. Il. 9.212–13 C λ ( λ
φ)*< (, | $ κ ! !« … : ) (etc.) Il. 2.699* et al. : * … )
cf. h.Herm. 345 141 1/« (etc.) Il. 7.476* et al. : )μ Hes. Th. 911* : φ*« Il.
6.6* et al. : φ*« … )7(« cf. [Hes.] fr. 23a.8 et al. [φ!!] )7(«, Od. 4.45 F)( …
!)7(« 142 K))7(« cf. h.Herm. 2 : ρ5’ σ« Hes. Th. 654* : $φ Il. 13.654* et al. :
cf. 5.381* et al. ( etc.) : $φ cf. Od. 1.332 et al. $φ * :
( Il. 2.117* et al. 143 C « Il. 24.489* : C « ¹ Il. 6.101* : )/
« ² cf.
h.Herm. 86 : $"*)(! (etc.) Il. 11.809* et al. 144 = Od. 9.521, [Hes.] fr. 204.117, h.Aphr.
35 : Κ (etc.) Il. 1.548* et al. : Il. 1.339* et al. : Κ ( $ @
Il. 18.404* et al. 145 1«* Il. 10.183 et al. : :μ« () Il. 1.5*, Od. 5.146* et al. : 1«
E
« Il. 20.72* : :μ« # 1« E
« cf. h.Herm. 28 146 /« [Hes.] Sc. 389* :
Il. 22.460* et al. : 3 Il. 3.332* 147 Κ 9 ( Od. 5.469* (Κ () : S 9
(etc.)
Il. 16.385* et al. : ) « (etc.) Il. 13.242* et al. : Κ 9( S 9
) « cf. Il. 5.5 $!
S ) ) «* : 1’ Il. 2.754* : 1’ S/)( Il. 1.359* 148 Ν Od. 9.312* et al. :
< Od. 12.166* et al. : (* Od. 12.346* et al. 149 _ Il. 3.155* et al. : _
!λ "" (etc.) cf. Il. 13.18* !λ ""«, 13.158* φ !λ ""« :
C Il. 1. 152 et al. : 1 Il. 8.170* : —« Il. 14.50* et al. : ’ Κ Il. 5.734* et al. : C
1 —« # Κ cf. Il. 19.92–93 C # Κ | ) 150 !!«
Il. 3.85* et al. : !!« ’ h.Dem. 359* : !!« ’ Ν Il. 23.55* : ) @/ (etc.)*
Il. 1.50 et al. : 1« E
« cf. h.Herm. 46 151 ! (etc.) cf. h.Herm. 237*, 268*,
306* : $φ’ c« cf. Il. 3.328 et al. $φ’ c!() : )« (etc.) Il. 18.522* et al. : $φ’
c« )« cf. Il. 5.186 et al. )« (etc.) c« : 1 * cf. h.Herm. 163*
151–52 | 7 cf. Il. 2.136 et al. 7
147 Q.S. 4.111* Κ 9( K(@9 ( ) « 147–48 cf. A.R. 4.877–78 Cκ , 9

)(
«, 1# R «, | "
W# F « λ !7) *
141 1/ M | ) ~ 148 1« ~ | Ν M | L 149 ""Ω

M> 150 | ) P | huic versu puncta apponit M 151 )« M : ¹)« D
Chalcondyles : )« At cett.
180 YMNO!
7, )9 (! λ !λ )φ« $1

, /) κ # $ ! / μ« .
( # C Ν # 3)( *«, ρ ·
155 !1, )
, * * μ« — 9(
3 /9(, $( ; ! )# F
_ /# $7/ ! λ ) 9
! 3/
[(U Kμ / !λ ξ 1 7!,
ν !ξ φ & # Ν φ)(1!.
160 3 )· )( ! κ φ1!
(« $ @! λ $! !.
152 7 (etc.) Il. 2.38* et al. : )9 (!() Il. 5.558 et al. : $1 Il. 15.364* et al.
153 Il. 2.688* et al. : /) cf. h.Herm.24 : ’ $ ! Il. 2.526* et al. : ’ $ !
cv Il. 12.201 = 219 : / *« Il. 5.416* et al. : ’ $ ! / *«* Od. 5.277 : / μ«
Hes. Op. 480* 154 ( Od. 2.113* et al. : ( ’ Il. 6.425* et al. : C Ν ’
Od. 9.475* : 3)( Od. 2.106* (= 24.141*) : (etc.) Il. 24.537* et al. : *« Il. 2.318* et al. :
*« cf. Od. 5.97* * : ρ Il. 7.277* et al. 155 Il. 4.340* et al. :
!1 Il. 7.24* et al. : )
Od. 13.293*, h.Apol. 322 : * * cf. h.Herm. 32 :
μ« — 9 ( cf. h.Herm. 67 156 $( (etc.) Il. 1.149* et al. :
(etc.) cf. [Hes.] fr. 70.13 : ! )() Il. 13.463* et al., cf. h.Herm. 282 _ ! )’
S 157 _ /() Od. 18.73 et al. : $7/ ! cf. Od. 8.274–75 !L« | $ 7 «,
$)1« : 3/ (etc.) Il. 5.895* et al. 158 [(U (etc.) [Hes.] Sc. 479* et al. : Kμ
/ ! Il. 2.860* et al. : [(U Kμ / ! cf. Il. 11.180 #A U Kμ / !, 16.699
P * ) Kμ / ! : ξ 1 Od. 18.386* : 7! Il. 5.646* cf. h.Herm. 271
1
!* 159 Ν Il. 20.490 et al. : ’ Ν cf. Il. 22.190 ’
Ν 160 3 Il. 8.164* et al. : ) Il. 3.427* et al. : )( Il. 7.441* et al.
160–61 )( ! … | … $ @« cf. Adesp. Eleg. 61.4 IEG […]
’ φ1[! " -
«] 161 cf. h.Herm. 6 : (« $ @! Hes. Th. 552* et al. : λ $! Il.
5.380* et al. : $ @! λ $! ! Hes. Th. 204* et al.
153 cf. Alcm. 84 # $ ! /( μ« 3/ : A.R. 2.1266 3/ # # $ ! /
(cf. h.Herm. 418, 499) 154 AP 5.127.5 (= GP 1359) ( # C 3) 155 cf.
Call. fr. 177.12–13 (= SH 259.12–13; cf. p. 118–19) 156 cf. Arat. 198 Κ ! )# F
157 Opp. C. 2.264* λ ) 9
! 3/* : Anacr. 388.2–3 λ ξ 3/ … 5)μ λ
vc> "*«
) 9
! <cc 159–61 A.R. 3.129–53 (cf. p. 115) 160 cf. E. Or. 552
κ ξ φ1! : Call. fr. 177.14 (= SH 259.14)
152 λ !λ Forssmann : # 1! > : 1! M : # 1! p ( =1! f)

153 κ f 154 3) M 155 * Wolf 1 : codd. 156 ! D
157 _ /# ~ : 1!/# M : ν /# Barnes, edd. plerique : κ /# Bywater : 1!/# (scil. 1!/)
Radermacher | ) !() p 158 versum cruce notat P 159 om. At | φ
& Càssola : φ <L M : )"* <L ~ ()* Matthiae) : μ
«
& Schmitt | φ)(1! M > : φ()(1! p (Barnes), cf. 67 et 175 161 ( E T
EI! E"MHN 181
κ # E
« 1! $" )!·

7, ! , 1
7, χ« ) φ !λ F!) ρ,
"), λ ( μ« K «; 165
C Ω /(« "7! D « $ !(
" ) ξ λ !ξ «· Cξ !
# $! $@ ( λ Ν)!
C 9
« $<*# ³« !L )1«.
") - # $« S &, 170
)1!, $φ*, ))7, ν
Ν ) * !!· $φλ ξ
«
162 = h.Herm. 260, 463 : $" Il. 13.823* et al. : 7 (etc.) ’ vv,c 1! $" Il.
3.71* et al., cf. Il. 24.200 et al. $" 1) : )! Od. 8.548* : 1! … -
)! cf. Od. 6.148 ) … 163
7 Il. 18.79* et al. :
Il. 3.399 et al. : 1 | 7 cf. h.Herm. 151–52 163–64 cf. Il. 20.200–202, 431–33
164 7 (etc.), Il. 2.38* et al. : 7, Ρ« (etc.) Il. 8.177* et al. : χ« ) Il. 7.401 et al. :
) Od. 14.210* : φ ! Il. 4.245* et al. : F!) Il. 5.403* : φ !λ F!) ρ
cf. Od. 2.231 φ !λ F! @« 165 « (etc.) Il. 5.492* et al. 166 C @ Il.
3.290* et al. : "7! D « cf. h. Herm. 173 : D « $ !( Il. 17.62* et al. : "7! D «
$ !( cf. Od. 2.294 *5 D « $ !( 167 ξ λ ! Il. 10.43* et al. : « Il.
5.112* et al. : «, C Il. 5.284* et al. : Cξ !* h.Dem. 354 167–68 !
| … ’ $! cf. Od. 12.370 168 Il. 5.34* et al. : ’ $!() Il. 20.314*
et al. 169 C 9
« (etc.) cf. Od. 11.52 C : $<*’ cf. Il. 5.895*
et al. $< : ³« !1 Il. 15.570* et al. : ³« !L )1« Il. 21.223* et al. : $<*’ ³« !L -
)1« cf. Il. 8.35* $φ<*’ ³« !L )1« 170 ") Il. 14.81* et al. : -
Il. 13.826* et al. : ’ $« cf. Od. 8.348 : S & cf. h.Hom. 23.3* S &
171 )1! Hes. Op. 22* : $φ* (et al.) Il. 6.47* : ))7 et al. Il. 5.613* et al. :
$φ*, ))7 cf. Hes. Op. 308 )1() ’ $φ , Il. 5.613 ) 7
))7«, [Hes.] fr. 240.1–2 ))7« ’ C) | $φ7 : ν Il. 19.334* : Il.
5.213* et al. : Il. 22.442* et al. 172 * Hes. Th. 294* : Ν )
* cf. h.Herm. 359* : !! Od. 3.336* : $φλ Il. 1.481* et al. : $φλ ξ
« cf.
h.Dem. 85* $φλ ξ 7
169 AP 7.153.3* C 9

! : cf. Hdt. 7.141.2, 9.11.1 171 [Orph.] A. 1106 $φ-
μ λ )1! 172 [Orph.] H. 69.4* Ν ) * (cf. Q.S. 12.449–50 7
) Ν Kμ !φ)@= 9 ( | *)
163 ! Pierson coll. Il. 20.201 : 1! codd. : 1! « Ruhnkenius
164 )) λ φ !λ Ν M 165 ") L 167 " ) Ludwich
(" ) Gemoll) : ")1 codd. 168 Ν)! E T : Ν! M D L P f P V (ss. )
L P P) : Ν)! A Q C L3 : Ν)! R2 : Ν ! B 169 $<*# M 172
«
codd. : 9

« Gemoll (9

Schneidewin)
182 YMNO!
$Ω
« ²!(« "7! x« #A*)).
κ @9(! κ *«, _ 3
175 7!· 1 φ)( R /« ρ.
# 7! [(« « ¹*«,
Ν)) ¹ λ & S $")7!·
ρ « P * $ 7!·
3 Ϊ)« « ))« ξ )"(«
180 7! λ / !*, Ϊ)« # F !(
λ ))κ '!
· !L # R5 F # )9(!.
γ« ¹ W# !! μ« $))7)« $*
¹*« # */ :μ« λ * M.
#HΩ« # φ*« (! φ !
173 "7!, cf. h.Herm. 166 : x« (etc.) Il. 2.286* et al. : #A*)) Il. 1.43* et al.
174 cf. [Hes.] fr. 75.25 [ κ @9
(! ]κ $ ; () Il. 2.364* et al. :
7 Od. 14.398* : κ @9(! cf. Il. 1.137 et al. κ @!* (Ω …) :
κ *« Od. 2.71* et al. : 3 Il. 1.173* et al. 175 7! Od. 2.316* : 1
(etc.) Il. 3.236* et al. : R /« (etc.) Il. 2.387* : φ)( R /« cf. h.Herm. 292 : ρ
Il. 1.91* et al. 176 () Od. 16.274* : [(« « ¹*« h.Apol. 182*
177 Ν)) Od. 5.173* : λ & Il. 23.551 et al. : S Il. 11.834* : $")7! (etc.) Il.
4.342* et al. 178 ρ Il. 14.200* : ρ «/« Od. 2.214* : * h.Dem.
171* : * $ 7! cf. Il. 10.267 μ * $ 7!«* 179 3
Ϊ)« cf. h.Herm 493* : « Il. 9.122* et al. : « … ξ )"(« cf. Il. 23.259
)"(« « , 24.233, Od. 13.13 ξ )"(, h.Herm. 61 : «
))« ξ )"(« Od. 13.217* : ))« (etc.) Il. 1.603* et al.
179–80 « ))« ξ )"(« | cc,c λ / !* Od. 13.217–18*
180 cf. Od. 14.263–64 = 17.432–33 : λ / !* Od. 15.448* : Ϊ)« () Od. 2.339* : F
!( Od. 1.184* 181 λ ))κ '!
cf. Od. 13.217–18 « ))«
ξ )"(« | … λ / !μ Kφ b ) : R5, F ’ )9 (! Il. 4.353 et al. : F
’ )9 (! (etc.) Il. 18.457* et al. 182 —« ¹ W() Il. 20.153* et al. : !! Il. 5.30*
et al. : μ« $))7)« Il. 11.643* et al. : ³« ¹ ξ vv,cv μ« $))7)« $*
Il. 5.274* et al. : !! μ« $))7)« $* Od. 10.34* : $* (etc.) Od. 8.505*
183 ¹*« ’ */ :*« cf. Il. 10. 553 1 ( ’ */ :*«, Il. 1.202 : */ :« Il.
1.222* et al. : * M cf. h.Herm. 19 184 cf. Il. 11.1–2, Od. 5.1–2; Il. 1.477*
et al. : φ*« Il. 8.282* et al. : (! φ ! cf. Hes. Op. 103* (! φ !
175 cf. Epigr.Gr. 1108.2 Kaibel χ« φ()( c

) /’ Ν φ 182 cf. A.R. 1.260
¹ W γ« $*
173 x E 175 ita interpunxit Agar | 1 Chalcondyles : 1 ξ codd. |
φ)( Wolf 1 (cf. 67 et 159) : φ)(1 ~ : φ)( M : φ()( Stephanus : φ()(
Barnes : φ)( Ernesti 181 F )(! p : ρ )(! x 183 μ« om. L | λ
om. E | M ~ : 7( M
EI! E"MHN 183
c # $# # " *· C #A*)) 185

#O/(!*# $φ @, )7 Ν)!«
4μ !φ f(*/· 3
† @) i < ² Q « $)
«.
μ * « !φ( [(« « ¹*«·
τ #O/(! " * 7«, 190
"« $μ P (« &7« # ¹ ,
!« ()«, !« !! ') «,
< $)(«· ² ξ « "*! « $# Ν))
«, / λ ξ 1« *! Q
!! «, 1 φ« ²*φ «· ¹ ξ 3)φ 195
b 1« Ρ «, χ κ λ ·
185 c ’ Od. 2.2*, 3.405*, 4.307*, 8.2* : $’ # h.Hom. 32.7* : $’ #
" * Il. 7.422 et al. " * # , cf. Il. 19.1 $’ # W
" ** (etc.) Il. 21.8 et al. : C #A*)) Il. 16.728* et al. 186 cf. Il. 2.506,
h.Apol. 230; $φ @ cf. h.Herm. 70* $φ : $φ … )7 cf. Od.
15.366 et al. )7 ¹ *’ : Ν)!« Il. 2.506* et al. 187 4* (etc.) Od. 11.386* et
al. : f(*/ (etc.) Il. 9.183* et al. : (etc.) Il. 8.518* et al. 188 i Il. 13.765* :
< Il. 9.7* et al. : ξ< ² Il. 10.349* : Q « Il. 3.229* et al. : $)
« (etc.) Il. 9.534*
et al. : Q « $)
« cf. Od. 24.224 $)
« 3 Q «, Il. 5.90 Q cv $)
189 cf. h.Herm. 89 190 τ cf. h.Herm. 90* : 7« (etc.) Il. 20.9* et al.
191 cf. h.Herm. 262 : "« Od. 2.56* et al. : &7« (etc.) Il. 4.88* et al. : ’ Il. 2.203* et
al. : ’ ¹ (etc.) Il. 13.449* 192 !« (etc.) Il. 2.809* : !« ()« Il.
11.681* : ()« (etc.) Il. 2.767* et al. 193 < $)(« cf. 18.573 ’ $)(* : «
$’ Ν)) cf. Il. 15.244 *!φ $’ Ν))*, Od. 9.192 et al. ρ (etc.) $’ Ν))*
194 « (etc.) Il. 4.282* et al. : / λ ξ 1« cf. Od. 11.611 / )« :
*!() Od. 21.116* et al. : Q Il. 1.424* et al. 195 !! « Il. 11.699* et al. :
²*φ « (etc.)* Il. 22.263 et al., cf. h.Herm. 391 ²*φ μ 3/« 196 b
1« Ρ « cf. Il. 2.503–504 et al. : Ρ (etc.) 7 Il. 1.388* et al. : χ κ λ
cf. Il. 18.549* μ κ λ
191 A.R. 3.1179 Ρ# EC @( &7« !φ (cf. h.Herm. 262) 192 Call. Dian.
14 !« «, !« 3 « $ « : [Alcman] Adesp. Lyr. 9.2 (p. 186 CA) !
, ! ) 3# 3/![] 193 S. Ph. 183 (lyr.) « $# Ν)) :
[Orph.] A. 949* !! 1( $# Ν))
186 R/(!*# P : S/(!μ # D E : S/(!*# At cett. 188 @) codd. : ))
Gemoll : ) Ilgen : */) seu /)μ Hermann : 1) Schmitt : @)
Ridgeway : ()) Courtney : alii alia | Barnes (coll. 87) : codd. : )
Schneidewin : $ Tyrrell : * Humbert | ξ< ( < p) ² Q « $)
« codd.
( μ« $)
« Allen Sikes) : # 3< Q « C)
« Evelyn-White 190 "* M
193 "*! om. p
184 YMNO!
λ # 3" )

) )«, $μ ) .
, )«, F R«
200 $ !# λ "!λ 7!! ).
μ # ² 1! $"*« !α
τ φ)«, $ ) ξ Ρ!# Sφ)! F
)α ))λ ²μ 7!!! ²,
¹ ξ )) *«, ¹ ξ )# !)
205 φ!α /)μ ξ 7 ! Q !.
C Ω * _ « ) 1
3! λ μ $)
« α
# 3<, φ ! – !φξ« # C ρ –
!.
197 λ ’ 3" cf. Il. 1.606 et al. ¹ … 3", Il. 23.132 et al. r ’ 3" : ) -
cf. h.Herm. 371* ) )), cf. Il. 1.592 et al. )) 1
(etc.), Od. 1.276, 11.414 * 198 ) )« Od. 5.72 )«
) , cf. 9.132–33 : ) )« Hes. Th. 279 ) ) )*, h.Dem. 7
)’ r ) * : ) cf. Il. 11.89 ! ) , h.Apol. 461
199 cf. Hes. Th. 114 3! : (etc.) Il. 9.607* et al. : ξ
)« Il. 17.561* : F Il. 4.88* et al. : (!) F R« Od. 3.93* et al.
200 $ (etc.) Il. 9.239* et al. : λ "!() Od. 20.209 : 7!! ) Il. 1.483*
7!!! ) : ) (etc.) Il. 1.312 et al. 201 μ ’ ² Il. 16.191* :
* (etc.) () … 1! $"*« !() Il. 3.437 et al. : 1! $"*« (etc.)
!() etc. Od. 4.234 et al. 202 τ φ)« Od. 3.375* et al. : Sφ)! F
Il. 1.587 et al. () Sφ)! F (etc.), 3.28 Sφ)! @, cf. Il. 3.169 : F (etc.)
Il. 3.453* et al. 203 ))λ Od. 16.134* et al. : ²μ 7!!! cf. Il. 24.264 et al.
(b) 7!! (etc.) ² : ² (etc.) Il. 16.263* et al. 204 ¹ Od. 19.564* :
)) Od. 5.377* : *« (etc.) Il. 2.818* : ¹ ξ )’ Il. 23.717* : )’ !) cf.
Thgn. 95* 205 /)μ Od. 11.156* : /)μ ξ 7 cf. [Hes.] fr. 324.1 /)μ
ξ
! : 7 Il. 6.150* et al. : 7 ! cf. Od. 13.335 et al. !λ 7 : 3!
Q ! (etc.) Il. 20.25* et al. 206 C @ Il. 3.290* et al. : * _ Od. 24.41* :
* _ « ) 1 Il. 1.601* et al. 207 μ $)
« cf. Il. 9.534 )
$)
« : λ μ $)
« cf. Od. 1.193* et al. ($/ …) : Il.
9.579* 208 ’ Il. 1.20 et al. : φ ! Il. 6.123* et al. : !φξ« ’ C ρ cf. Il. 5.183
!φ ’ C ρ() :
! (etc.) Il. 1.549* et al.
197 A.R. 1.924–25 ξ ) : Lyr.Adesp. 9.2 (p. 168 CA) 198 Batrach.
38* $μ ) : Nonn. D. 7.241 )
« 205 [Theoc.] 25.67 /)μ #
' * F $ *« (cf. p. 121)
!
200 ) M 202 F M : F « Barnes : F Ernesti 203 ² E
205 φ! ~ : 7!!! M 207 μ om. L 208 7!« M | ita interpunxit
van Herwerden
EI! E"MHN 185
Ρ« « ² « Ϊ "!λ 9(! S7,

7«, ρ/ ξ W", ! φ( # "&, 210
<! # $ , ( # 3/ $ C)
.
φ
W# ² α ² ξ !! ²μ $ 1!«.
μ # * ! , C # 3
φ)7( :μ« K «.
!!« # -< Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) 215
« P1) ( &7« )« "«,
φ 9 ( φ)9
( )« C « c«α
F/ # !*(! E ("*)« ρ
φ * _ *# Sφ)! ² α
F/ ξ # !λ " S , 220
209 ² « Il. 6.467 : Ϊ "! … S7 cf. h.Aphr. 78 Ϊ "!λ Q : S7 (etc.) Il.
2.184* et al. 210 7« cf. h.Herm. 164 : ρ/ [Hes.] Sc. 214 : ρ/ ξ W" cf. Od.
24.2 3/ ξ W", 10.389 W" 3/!’ / 211 <! Od. 4.35* : <! ’
$ cf. Il. 17.752 $ S!! : ( ’ Il. 22.398* et al. 212 φ
W() Od. 4.504*
et al. : φ
W# ² Il. 22.77* _ W# ² : $ 1!« (etc.) Il. 2.16* et al.
213 ! (etc.) Od. 5.65 et al.* : C ’ 3 Il. 1.199* et al. 214 φ)(7 cf.
h.Herm. 67 : Il. 9.456* et al. : :μ« K « cf. h.Herm. 230* 215 cf.
h.Herm. 227 : !!« ’ -< h.Dem. 449*, cf. Il. 11.118 )« ’ -< : -< Il.
4.78* et al. : Ν< :μ« ¹*« Il. 5.105 : Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) Il. 7.23* et al. 216 «
P1) ( Od. 2.308*, cf. Il. 1.252 et al. P1)) 9 ( : )« "« Il. 15.547*
et al., cf. Il. 6.424 "!λ ’ )*!! etc. : &7« )« "« cf. h.Herm. 370*
217 cf. Il. 5.168 φ)9 ( )« c« : φ 9 ( φ)9 ( Il. 17.551, cf. Il. 5.345 9(
φ)9 ( : φ)9 ( )« etc. Od. 8.562* et al. : )« etc. Il. 16.790* et al. :
C « c« Il. 3.210* et al. : )« C « c« Il. 16.360* 218 F/ Il.
13.71* et al. : !*(! etc. Od. 11.601 : E ("*)« cf. h.Herm. 18* : ρ cf.
h.Herm. 154* 219 = Il. 13.99 et al. : φ * Il. 2.157* et al. : φ * _ Il. 2.272* : φ
* _ Il. 1.254* et al. : _ Od. 16.346* et al. : _ *’ Sφ)! ² -
Od. 19.36 : Sφ)! ² Il. 22.169 220 F/ cf. h.Herm. 218* : # !
Il. 24.373* et al. : " S Il. 8.231* et al.
210 Opp. C. 4.138* ! φ( ξ 220 S. Ichn. 115–16 $))# C κ F/[( ]
/% !"« |
"[] 220–21 cf. Plu. 78f &( )*«,
o μ AF! F! »)) ν 3< F/(
209
! M : ! p 211 3/ codd. : 3/ Hermann 212 φ
# L2 |
!! scripsi : »!! codd. : » Allen Halliday coll. 255 | $ 1!« M xm :
φ"« $*)) ~ 214 φ)(κ M > (Ernesti) : φ()κ p : φ)κ E T (φ)(κ T2) :

φ()(κ Chalcondyles 215 om. L 217 φ ( L : φ ( E | versum cruce
notat P 218–19 om. M
186 YMNO!
$)) ) « $!φ)μ )α

"7 # Κ# $ μ« Κ μ«
Κ )1 ) Κ# Ν Κ )*α
Κ 1 )!1/« 3) ρ
225 Ρ« « ) "")» !λ )!α
ξ 3 ², # * # 3 ².
γ« Ω -< Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)).
K))7(« # $φ R « 8)9 (,
(« « "1! , 3 1φ(
230 $" !( )*/! :μ« K «.
Sκ # ¹ *!! # Κ «
, )) ξ
) 1 "*! (.
3 * !1 "7! ) Cμ
221 $)) ) Il. 16.95* : « $!φ)μ ) cf. Od. 11.539* et al. ’ $!φ)μ
) 222 Κ’ $ *« … Κ *« cf. Od. 4.142 et al. Κ’ Ν ’ Κ -
223 cf. h.Aphr. 70–71 !« ) )1 / )« | Ν :
)1 ) cf. Il. 10.334 ) )1 224 Κ Il. 5.817* et al. : 3) Il.
13.309* 225 ) (etc.) Il. 2.321* et al. : ) cf. h. Herm. 349 : !λ -
)! Il. 16.342*, cf. Il. 16.809 *!! )! (etc.) 227 γ« @ Il. 1.326*
et al. : Ν< :μ« ¹*« Il. 5.105 et al. : Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) Il. 7.37 et al.* : -< Ν< :μ«
¹μ« #A*)) cf. h.Herm. 215* 228 cf. h.Herm. 70, h.Apol. 225 (>7"(« # !φ «
Q« 8)9 () : K))7(« cf. h.Herm. 142* : $φ cf. h.Herm. 186* : R « -
8)9 ( Od. 13.351*, 19.431 229 (« « cf. Hes. Th. 158* f(« λ
: 3 Il. 2.594* : 3 1φ( (etc.) Od. 13.107 230 $" !( (etc.) Il.
1.259* et al. : :μ« K « cf. h.Herm. 214* 231 ¹ *!! [Hes.] fr. 291.3* : ’
Κ « h.Aphr. 69* : Κ « cf. Il. 20.491 Κ « $&) 231–32 Sκ ’
¹ *!!* … | cf. h. Dem. 277–78* (! ) 232 (etc.) Il. 11.308*
! et al. : )) Il. 15.314* et al. : )) ξ
) cf. Il. 9.466 (= 23.166) )) ξ
Fφ
) :
) 1 Od. 9.464* : )) ξ
) 1 h.Apol. 304, cf. h.Apol.
412 3
) "1 / "*! : "*! ( cf. h.Herm. 27 233 3 *
Il. 2.815* : !1 Hes. Th. 461* et al. : "7! cf. [Hes.] fr. 195.33* ( !"7!) et
al., h.Herm. 99 : ) C* Od. 8.80* et al. : cf. Od. 4.680 # C "
221 S. Ichn. 118–23 (cf. p. 80) 224 cf. Batr. 170b 1 )/ _! ² |
Q.S. 4.96* 3) ρ 229 Stesich. 184.3 (« : Luc. Pod. 3 T
! "! «, cf. [Orph.] A. 92 () « * ()
« «
(«)
224 Κ codd. : oCξ Hermann | 3) ρ M E T Lm Pm : 3! ² D p (-! P :

-!( L) | versum cruce notat P 230 M 232 » > : ! Lobeck

coll. h.Dem. 278 | 1 M p (1 f) | * M
EI! E"MHN 187
Ν « * E ("*)« Cμ« #A*)).

μ # ³« σ *(! :μ« λ M« ¹μ« 235
/* λ "!λ ' ("*) #A*))
! # 3! 7#α 1 ))κ
$ κ 8)(« !μ« $φ )1,
γ« E
« E μ Ω $) ‘ C*.
# S))
!)!! ( / « *« 240
φ7 W *))« ")1« D 8,
7!! * α /) <#> Kμ !/)9 ( ρ/.
# C# (! :μ« λ [(« ¹μ«
1φ( # C )) λ φ) ¹*,
# S) )9
(« ) 9
(!. 245
234 Ν « * cf. h.Herm 172 : ' ("*)« h.Apol. 134* : Cμ« #A*)) Il. 17.322* :
' ("*)« Cμ« #A*)) cf. h.Aphr. 151 ' ("*)« Cμ« #A*)) 235–37 cf. Od.
15.59–61 μ # ³« σ *(! #O!!
« φ)« ¹*«, | ! /**« W / λ
/ η !)* | 235 μ ’ ³« σ *(!() Il. 3.21* et al. : :μ« λ M«
¹*« cf. h.Herm. 1* 236 /* (etc.) Il. 1.244* : λ "! Od. 17.472* : /*«
λ "! cf. [Hes.] Sc. 12 /!« λ "! : ' ("*) #A*)) Il. 1.21*,
h.Apol 177 238 $φ )1 (etc.) Il. 2.262* et al. 239 E * (etc.) Il. 1.147*
et al. : Ω $) cf. Od. 16.477* : $)() Il. 13.669* etc. : ‘ C* Od. 17.387*
240 !)!! cf. h.Herm. 106* : / « *« Od. 11.497* et al. 241 D
8 h.Herm. 449*, cf. 7« 8« (etc.) Il. 2.2. et al. 242 * Il. 15.53 et al.*
243 ’ C’ (! cf. Hes. Th. 551* : :μ« λ [(« ¹*« (etc.) h.Apol. 545*, [Hes.]
Sc. 202* et al., cf. Il. 1.9 [(« λ :μ« ¹*« 244 1φ( ’ C ( cf. [Hes.] fr. 123.1
Κ 1φ : )) (etc.) Il. 1.603* et al. : φ) ¹* (etc.) ll. 3.307 et al.
245 ’ S) cf. Il. 5.800 S) …
234 [Orph.] H. 69.4* Ν « * 236 A.R. 4.616 (cf. p. 116) 237 Sotad.Com.
1.28–29 ! ! !« S | 5 # —! )μ « ))κ φ |
Call. Dian. 68–69
234 « om. E | * ' ("*) $*)) Aac | Cμ« #A*)) codd. : $ *<«
Hermann 238 8)(« !μ« ~ : ²)!μ« M : Κ)( (scil. mollis) !μ« Hermann |
$φ )1 M p x 239 $) codd. ($) E T) : $) Ilgen : $) Lohsee :
$)# Postgate apud Allen1 | ‘ C* Hermann : '* codd. 241 φ7 W Hermann : 7
W codd. : φ
W Barnes : —« W Martin | ")1« van Herwerden : )1« ~ :
)1« M | 7 p | Ν))) 8«·
)/ ()/1 P) -
)1« πL xm, cf. Radermacher p. 123 242 7!! * Hermann : Ν («·
«
* codd. (Ν ( B, Ν ( f : * f, μ fm) : 7!!, 7 Mar-
tin | # add. Hermann 245 9 (! codd. : C 9(! Gemoll
188 YMNO!
7« # $ /μ ) *

« $1« $) )"Ω )(ϋ φκ
« )« # $" !(«
«α
))μ« ξ / !*« λ Ν « 3 3 ,
250 )) ξ φ * λ Ν φ b 1φ(«,
s ¹ λ * μ« 3/!.
3# λ < /L« ) *
[(U(« 1! !(1 1 E
α
τ , χ« ) )
, 7 "«
255 !!α λ / !*# C *!.
W5 ! )"Ω « T *,
« &*φ * λ $7/α C ! 7(
« φ« Cξ κ $)1!, $))# Kμ 9 (
7!« S)! # $ ! π1.
246 7« (etc.) Il. 8.269* et al. : $ Il. 2.575* : /μ ) * cf. Il.
22.440 et al. /) * K5(), h.Herm. 252 247 cf. Il. 6.89 : $1« cf. h.Apol. 443* :
)(ϋ Il. 5.146* et al. : φ7 (etc.) Il. 3.247* et al. 248 cf. Il. 19.38 $" !( λ
* : $" !(«
« (etc.) Il. 19.347* et al. 249 ))*« (etc.) Il. 7.156*
et al. : / !*« λ Ν « (etc.) Od. 10.45* et al., cf. Il. 18.475 : 3 Il. 13.363* et al.
250 Ν φ (etc.) Il. 24.621* : Ν φ b cf. [Hes.] fr. 43a.73 b« $ φ, cf. Th.
574 $ φ9 ( '!
: b (etc.) Il. 2.261* et al. : 1φ(« Il. 9.560* et al. 251 s
(etc.) Od. 8.365 et al. : ¹ λ * (etc.) h.Hom. 29.2, cf. Il. 6.89 : *« Il. 1.432* et al. : μ«
3/! cf. Od. 2.341 μ« 3/« 252 < Il. 9.672* et al. : /L« )
* cf. h.Herm. 246* 253 [(U(« cf. h.Herm. 158 : 1! !(1 Il. 6.343*,
Hes. Th. 169, cf. !! !(1 Il. 5.30 et al. 254 cf. Od. 7.188* et al. :
) ) cf. h.Herm. 21 255 !! Il. 23.53* et al. : λ / Il. 12.345* et al. :
C *! Od. 20.181*, Solon 13.11* 256 cf. Il. 8.13, [Hes.] fr. 30.22 : ! Il.
13.76* : )"@ Il. 8.72* et al. : « T Hes. Th. 725* et al. : « T * Il.
8.13* et al., cf. Th. 736 et al.
« φ
« λ *« 257 * Il.
22.481* et al., cf. [Hes.] Sc. 227 &*φ * : $7/ (etc.) Il. 8.130* et al. : C ! Il.
1.561* et al. : C ! 7( Il. 21.123* et al. 258 « φ«* Hes. Th. 652 et al. : $)1!-
cf. Od. 12.200 ’ ! $)! : Kμ 9 ( (etc.) Il. 18.333* 259 S)!
Od. 12.252* : ’ $ !() Il. 11.762* et al. : S)! ’ $ ! cf. Il. 15.611* )*!!
’ $ !, Od. 18.330* et al. ))! ’ $ ! : π1 (etc.) Il. 2.645*
et al.
246 $ M : Ν ~ 248 )« M 249 M 250 Ν φ# corr. ex Ν # ut

videtur M 254 ) ) M E T Lm Pm p ()1 L2 R2, )7 f, ) R1, )7 B) Chal-
condyles : )( D L P | M > : ( p (praeter N qui - exhibet) : -
! Gemoll 255 !! scripsi : » ~ : »!! λ om. M spatio relicto :
»!! Ilgen coll. 212 256 )"Ω Ilgen : ")Ω codd. 259 S)! ~ : S)!
() Bothe
EI! E"MHN 189
μ # E
« 1! $" )!α 260
[(U(, $( 3«;
λ "« $ 1)« &7« # ¹ «;
C F, C *(, C Ν)) Ν !,
C r (1!#, C r 7 $ (,
Κ " )
) φλ 3 . 265
C μ 3 , « # λ Ν)) ()α
8« () λ π (« ) ( *«,
! # $φ# c! 3/ λ ) .
7 « 1 * * « 1/(α
κ # $! 270
1 o
!
"!λ # $ 1)!α μ # $ « $ 1«·
260 cf. h.Herm 161, 463 261 cf. Il. 1.552 et al. * K (, μ 3« :
$( (etc.) Il. 1.340* et al. : $( cf. Il. 15.202 $( : 3« cf.
h.Herm. 29* 262 $ 1)« etc. Il. 18.162* et al. : "« $ 1)« cf. Il. 10.155 et al.
"μ« $ 1) etc. : &7« ’ ¹ « cf. h.Herm. 191* 263 = h.Herm. 363 : C
F, C *( Od. 23.40* : Ν ! cf. h.Herm. 212* : Ν)) Ν ! (etc.)
Od. 3.94* et al. 264 cf. h.Herm. 364; C Ν Il. 3.54* et al. : $ ( Il. 18.121*
265 cf. h.Herm. 377; Κ " Od. 10.98 : " )
cf. h.Herm. 14 )
" : -
) (etc.) Il. 11.119* : 3 (etc.) Il. 1.47* et al. : ) φλ 3 cf. Il. 3.219 $ =
φλ @«* (etc.), Il. 5.604 " ) $ λ @« etc. 266 « (etc.)
Od. 11.324* et al. : Ν)) () (etc.) Od. 1.151* 267 8« (etc.) Il. 10.4* et al. : )
Il. 4.434* et al. 268 ! ’ $φ’ c! cf. h.Herm. 151 : ) Il. 14.6 et
al. 269 7 « Il. 3.107* et al. : * * cf. h.Herm. 32*, 155* : « Il. 3.87* et al. :
« 1/( Il. 11.671* et al. 270 7 Il. 5.898* : cf. h.Herm. 219* :
’ $! cf. h.Herm. 16* : (etc.) Il. 4.17* et al. 271
Od. 19.400*, h.Herm. 331* : cf. Od. 4.112, 144 : 1
cf. Il. 15.214 ξ 1 , cf. Il. 18.496* λ 1 ! :
! Il. 12.53* et al.
272 "!λ ’ $ 1)! cf. Il. 6.424* "!λ ’ )*!!, Od. 20.221 : $ 1« cf.
h.Herm. 182* : $ « $ 1« cf. $ « $ 1« Il. 15.53*
265 [Orph.] A. 945 1 # σ φ @ 267 [Orph.] A. 104 7( π (

269 cf. A.R. 3.739* Kξ i * « R
260 addit puncta M 261 ita interpunxit Stephanus | 3« D : 3« E 262 λ
codd. : _ Matthiae 263 *( D E T : *( At cett. 265 Κ codd. : Κ
Hermann (cf. 377) : Cξ Baumeister 266 C codd., edd. post distinctionem finalem :
Κ# Gemoll : C# Allen2 (uterque post comma) 269 * pro * T | pro
* f 272 "!λ # codd. : "!λ # Schneidewin | $ 1)(! M
190 YMNO!
/ξ« *(, 4)λ ξ *«, (/ # Kμ /@.

ξ )« μ« φ)κ Ρ Sα
275 κ ξ Ω 7# Cμ« K!/ F« ρ
7 # Ν)) R " )μ K ,
b « ¹ "*« !α μ ξ )« ρ $ 1.
γ« Ν # 3φ( λ μ $μ ")φ $ 1!!
Sφ 1! W&! ² @« 3 λ 3,
280 # $! &, Ϊ) ³« $ 1.
μ # 4)μ )!« !φ( ' « #A*))α
τ , , )φ «, _ ! )# F
)) « $ *« σ «
3/ Κ /# Q # Κ= φ !!,
273 /ξ« *( cf. h.Herm. 376 C Ω /&μ« *( : 4)λ ξ *« cf. Il. 19.92
4)λ *«, cf. Hes. Th. 3 et al. *!!’ 4)! : Kμ /@ Il. 2.465* 274 ξ )«
Il. 6.150* et al. : Ρ ² Il. 1.233* et al. 275 κ Il. 10.330* et al. : 7’
C*« Hes. Op. 270* : K!/ Od. 8.347* : F« ρ (etc.) Il. 1.153* et al. 276 7
’ Ν)) Il. 5.827 et al. : Ν)) R cf. Od. 23.226 Ν))« S@ : R (etc.) Il. 6.124*
et al. : K cf. Il. 24.567 π * 277 cf. h.Herm. 311 : b « h.Dem. 119, cf. Il.
2.487* et al. b « : μ ξ )« ρ $ 1 cf. Il. 2.486 π« ξ )« ρ $ 1 : ρ
$ 1 cf. Od. 23.40* ($)) !*) ρ Ν ! 278 γ« Ν ’ 3φ( cf. h.Herm. 43* : $μ
")φ Od. 4.114 et al., $ 1!! cf. Hes. Th. 827 $ !!* 279 Sφ 1! Od.
12.194 et al.* : ² @« (etc.) Od. 4.47* et al. : ² @« 3 λ 3 cf. [Hes.] fr. 294.2. :
3 λ 3 Il. 2.476* et al. 280 ’ Od. 12.229* : Ϊ) ³« cf. Il. 5.715 Ϊ)
μ : $ 1 Il. 1.474 et al.* : $ 1 Il. 24.632* et al. 281 4)μ
)!«* cf. Od. 14.465 4)μ )! : μ (etc.) # vv,cvv, c !φ( Il. 1.84*
et al. : ' « #A*))* Il. 1.479 et al. : !φ( ' « #A*))* Il. 5.439 et al.
282 τ Il. 6.55* et al. : Il. 3.39 (= 13.769) : )’ F cf. h.Herm. 156*
283 )) («) Il. 1.396* et al. : $ *« cf. Il. 10.267 (AC*) «) μ
* $ 7!« : σ « (etc.) Od. 19.30* et al. : *« (etc.) σ « Il.
6.370* et al. 284 3/ cf. Il. 11.716* 3/« : ’ Κ= cf. h.Herm. 149 : φ (etc.)
Il. 2.164* et al. : !! cf. Il. 9.488* !!«.
275–76 cf. A.R. 3.512 7# Cμ« 7 # Ν)) # $
278 Q.S. 14.393 μ $μ ")φ 282 Mosch. 1.10–11 « | … *)
" φ«
273 Kμ /Ω E T M Chalcondyles : K/Ω cett. (S!/@ L) : 8 /@ Hermann
)
274 ξ )« codd. : # )« Ilgen 278 $ 1!! T2 279 Sφ 1! codd. : Sφ «
μ
Hermann | W&! M 280 ³« M (Chalcondyles) : μ D E T : ³« L : μ ³« P : ³« μ
p (³« μ A Q) : Ω« Radermacher 282 - M 284 C /# Q A Q L (Tucker apud Allen2) :
C# Q M : C/ Q cett.
EI! E"MHN 191
! & # ρ Ν 5*φ, s# $ 1«. 285

))L« # $ 1)« $ /7!« ()"
«
Κ « "7!!9(«, ²* &
$7!« $)9(! " λ @! 7).
$))’ Ν, κ 1* λ 8! 8 1!«,
) ", )(« μ« ' . 290
σ λ 3 # $« « Q<«α
$ /μ« φ)( )7! - .
γ« Ν # 3φ( λ )"Ω φ d"« #A*)).
!L # Ν φ !!« * κ L« #A φ*(«
μ ( $ *« / !, 295
)7 ! μ« 3 , $!) $)@(.
285 s’ $ 1« Il. 18.95* et al. 286 $ 1)« cf. h.Herm. 262* : ()"
«
Il. 18.529* 287 Κ « "7!!9 (« Il. 3.34* et al. : & cf. h.Herm. 64*
288 $)9 (! " cf. Il. 11.678 " $)« : @! 7) Od. 4.413* : $)9 (! " λ
@! 7) cf. Il. 15.323 " $)( ν ’ (cf. 18.528) || cf. Th. 445–46 :
* « S!! Il. 5.137* 289 $))’ Ν Il. 1.62* et al. : $))’ Ν, 7 Od. 21.111* :
1 (etc.) Il. 6.118* et al. : 1* λ 8! Il. 22.203* et al., cf. Od. 20.13 8!
λ 1 : 1!« (etc.) Od. 11.261* : 8 1!« cf. h.Aphr. 177* 8 1«
290 )(« *« cf. h.Herm. 67* 291 λ 3 Il. 3.290* et al. : ’ $«
cf. h.Herm. 170 : « Q<« cf. Od. 15.522* « Q< cf. Od. 11.534 « … 3/
292 $ /*« (etc.) Il. 2.234* : $ /μ« φ)( cf. h.Herm. 175, Od. 8.162 $ /μ« :
- Il. 8.539* : )7! - h.Aphr. 148* 293 γ« Ν # 3φ( cf.
h.Herm. 39* : λ Od. 3.196* : )"Ω φ Od. 21.359 : d"« #A*)) Il. 1.43* etc.
294 L« #A φ*(« Il. 16.181* et al. 295 cf. Od. 2.146–47 : * cf. h.Herm.
213* : ( Il. 4.398* et al. : / ! Il. 11.184* et al. : $ *« / ! cf. Hes.
Op. 540 ( /«) $ ** ! 296 )7 Il. 5.670* : $!) (etc.) Il.
11.695* et al. : $)@( cf. Il. 2.554*, 16.167* $!@«
289 Q.S. 13.27* 1! 8 F 290 Trphd. 503* (π!/() μ« ' (
296 Cal. Jov. 68 7 # # K / $)@( : Nonn. D. 13.36 }(
7 ( $! $)@(
# $ 1)« )7!«
286 # $ 1)« M p Chalcondyles : 1)« > ( 1)« $ /7!« T2) 287 ²*
P | ~ : 7) M 288 $7!« D E T (cf. 43 et 289, h.Apol. 73) : $7!9
(« M L
r
P p ($7!« L3 corr. m. pr. in -!(« R1) | f Ν( " )! λ * « S!! xm
(288a Càssola) : $9

« vel $)»« Schneidewin ($)»« Baumeister) 289 $)) M | κ
!
om. M | 7* M | om. D | 1!« M D (cf. 288) : 1!9(« p > praeter D (1(« P)
292 σ/« M : $ /μ« corr. ex $ μ« E | φ)( M > B f (Ernesti) : φ() A Q (φ()////
corr. ex φ)( P) V : φ()( Chalcondyles 294 φ !!« Chalcondyles :
φ !« codd. 296 )7 E T
192 YMNO!
!!« ξ # Cμ α # #A*))

3 ), / ξ /λ ") 1 E
.
Q& ξ λ !!1*« ²
300 E
μ« 3α
!, ! , :μ« λ M« ¹α
K 7! λ 3 " Fφ (
1« !α !L # σ# ²μ π1!«.
γ« φ#α ² # σ# $* ! « K))7« E
«
305 !9
@α Νφ ξ # Κ / !λ @
! $φ# c« )«, ρ ξ α
9
φ «, E , &! ;
_ " Q/# o /)1« S !)1«;
φ * F# $*) " «α C Υ
297 !!« cf. h.Herm. 150* : !!« [Hes.] Sc. 411* : ’ C* Od. 17.336* :
Od. 17.545* : ’ #A*)) Il. 1.380* et al. : ’ #A*)) | 3 ) cf. Il.
1.380–81 ’ #A*)) | C< - ! 298 3 ) Il. 9.572* : / Il.
8.137* et al. : / Il. 4.482* et al. : /λ ") Il. 9.541* et al. : / … ") Il. 23.284
/ 3") : 1 E
cf. h.Herm. 46* 299 Q& Il. 2.42* et al. : -
Il. 2.92* et al. : λ !!1*« ² Od. 4.733* 300 Hes. Th.
545* : μ« 3 Il. 7.46* etc. 301 ! Il. 4.184* et al. : !
cf. h.Hom. 1.17 φ* : :μ« λ M« ¹ cf. h.Herm. 2* 302 λ 3 cf.
h.Herm. 291* : " Fφ ( cf. h.Herm. 94* 303 !() Il. 2.859* et al. : !L
’ σ Il. 24.732* : !L ’ σ# ²μ π1!« cf. Od. 6.261* et al. Ω ’ ²μ π-
1! 304 —« φ’· ² ()* Il. 2.182 etc., Od. 5.451 ³« φ#, ² # C : ² # σ# Il.
9.289 et al. : $* ! Il. 11.273* (= 399) et al. : « Il. 3.422* et al. : $* ! « cf. Il.
3.325 6½« c, cv R ! : K))7« E
« cf. Od. 24.1 E
« … K))7«
305 !9
Il. 2.99* et al. : Νφ Il. 1.259* : ’ Κ Il. 21.491* 306 !
$φ’ c« )« cf. h.Herm. 151 : ρ ξ Il. 23.204*, cf. Il. 7.277 et al. ρ
307 φ « cf. Od. 9.39 (#I)* φ ) : … cf. Il. 14.233
etc. : ' &! cf. Il. 22.15* ' S)@-
308 _ Od. 12.372* etc. : " Q (/)’ Hes. Th. 983, [Hes.] Sc. 82 : /-
)1« Hes. Op. 138, [Hes.] fr. 30.15. 309 φ * cf. h.Herm. 192* : F’ $*) cf.
Od. 1.47 ³« $*) : " « Od. 20.212* : C Υ Il. 4.374* et al.
304–305 A.R. 3.516 ! /*« # $* ! «
299 !!« f 303 C« M | ! !L M p (Barnes) : ! σ > (σ fm) :
« σ Chalcondyles 304 φ# Abel : 3φ# M : φ# ~ | Ρ C# L 306 ($φ#
c«) )« Windisch (secl. v. 305) : ($φ# c!) )« M : )« > : ')«
p (Stephanus) : ) Schneidewin : ') Wolf 2 : ¹)« vi media Fick : c« )-
) Gemoll 308 /ξ M | S !)1« p
EI! E"MHN 193
K « 3 )5 "*«, C# Ν)) R, 310

b « ! "*«α μ ξ κ )« ρ $ 1.
μ« ξ ( λ < Z(λ K .
C λ Q ! 7(
E
« # *)« λ [(« $)μ« ¹μ«
$φλ« μ 3/«α ² ξ ( φ 315
C $ « λ "!λ )& 1 E
,
C ² /9 (! λ ¹)! )*!
-) <» K))7« #A *<α
C λ )1(« Ω )7/ i ,
!!« - 5 "& 320
*!, $ *! :μ« λ [(« ¹*«.
ρ5 ξ b @« OC)1
« K :μ« )) α
310 3 )5 (etc.) Il. 5.268*, 14.217* : Ν)) R cf. h.Herm. 276, 338 311 cf. h.Herm.
277 312 μ« Il. 10.281* et al. : Z(λ K cf. h.Dem. 316 Z(λ )φ
K 313 cf. Od. 14.375 $))’ ¹ ξ Q ! … < ! : Q ! Il. 11.706*
et al. : etc. Il. 6.145* et al. 314 *)« (etc.) Il. 13.473* : $)μ« ¹*« etc. Il.
2.736* et al. 315 μ 3/« (etc.) Il. 13.704* : $φλ« μ 3/« cf. Il. 13.345
$φλ« φ 1 K * s @ : ( Od. 1.86* et al. 316 C $ «
AP 16.26.3* (FGrE 690) : λ "! cf. h.Herm. 316* : 1 E
cf. h.Herm. 130*
317 C ² Il. 1.333* et al. : ¹)! )*! Od. 1.56*, Hes. Th. 890 318 -) (etc.)
Il. 10.229* et al. : K))7« etc. Od. 24.1* : #A *< Il. 24.56* : K))7«
#A *< cf. h.Herm. 387* K))7« #A φ*(« 319 )1(« Il. 3.216* et al. :
)7/ Od. 1.205* )7/« : i Il. 8.127* et al. 320 !!« cf.
h.Herm. 115* : - Il. 15.163* et al. : 5 etc. Il. 7.462* 321 *!() Il.
3.346* et al. : *! Il. 8.339* et al. : :μ« λ [(« ¹*« cf. h.Herm. 243* 322 ρ5
Il. 2.664* et al. : b Il. 1.484* et al. : @« Od. 4.121* et al. : OC)1 Il. 1.499* et
al. : @« OC)1 h.Dem. 331* 323 « cf. Od. 16.477* : K Il.
5.753* et al. : :μ« )) cf. Il. 5.693* :μ« )) : )) cf. Il. 16.85*
)) 1 ( : :μ« )) cf. h.Herm. 397*, 504*
312 cf. Thuc. 1.140.2 « ξ φ $))7)« * λ /!, 5.59.5 «
λ <! F!« λ ²« 313 A.R. 1.394 C λ Q ! -
φ « $)
312 < p 313 3 M | () M > 315 φ Wolf 2 : φκ codd. :
φ Windisch coll. 136, 385 | post hunc versum lacunam statuerunt Allen Sikes servato
φκ 316 )& M 318 -)# M 320. - Càssola : # - codd. :
7 3 Hermann 322 ξ b M D L P : # b ( E T, Lm Pm cum
r
signo f 2, p Chalcondyles
194 YMNO!
$φ ! (« ).

325 ¹)( # 3/# 5O) $φ, $ ξ
Νφ / !* #H.
3!(! # E
« λ #A *<« #A*))
*! :μ« α ² # $ φ ¹μ
ZL« K5" (« μ« 3α
330 d", * 1( )(U# )1«,
, φκ 7 « 3/;
! * /
# ²7 _).
μ # σ ! Ν< ' « #A*)).
τ , _ / $ 1! C $)*,
335 ³« ρ« Ω φ))7*« .
# i * 1! =!7,
324 cf. Il. 18.507–508; Od. 8.519* : $φ ! Il. 7.205* et al. : Od. 19.439* :
) Il. 8.69* et al. 325 5O) $φ Il. 1.420* et al. 325–26 $ …
| Νφ cf. h.Dem. 260–61 $* λ $7 … | φ) (! λ Νφ-
c! 7 (cf. Il. 18.370). 326 Od. 2.392* : / !* (etc.) Il.
1.611* et al. : / !* #H (etc.) Od. 14.502* et al. 327 $ *<« Il. 5.517* :
$ *<« #A*)) Il. 2.766* et al. 327–28 3!(! … | *! :μ« 1 cf. Il.
20.463 ² ξ $« -) 1 328 ² ’ $ Od. 7.21* : φ (etc.) Il. 4.505*
et al. : φ ¹* (etc.) Il. 6.144* et al. 329 ZL« K5" (« Il. 1.354* et al. :
μ« 3 cf. h.Herm. 300* 330 d" Il. 21.436* et al. : Il. 23.139* :
)(U’ Od. 13.273* : )(U# )1« cf. Il. 11.677 )(U … !)!!
331 cf. h.Herm. 271* : φ7 Il. 2.58* et al. : 7 « (etc.) Il. 1.391* et al.
332 ! …
cf. Thgn. 65–66 et al. /
… | ! : ’ ²7 Il.
20.142* et al. 333 = Il. 15.253; ’ σ !() Il. 1. 206* et al. : Ν< ' μ«
#A*)) Od. 8.323* et al. 334 τ Il. 8.31* : _ / Od. 18.389* : $ 1!
cf. h.Herm. 212* $ 1!« : C $)* (etc.) Il. 4.330* etc. 335
Od. 18.350*, cf. Od. 7.17 : ρ« @ Il. 23.458 336 1! (etc.) Il. 17.748*
et al.
324 Bacch. 4.12 : « ) : AP 6.267.4 :μ« (« ρ ) («

325–26 E. Andr. 1256 Νφ $* 7! * 328 Nonn. D. 2.419* *!
:*«
325 ¹)( Heyne apud Groddeck : C)( M : C)( ~ : C(, !)( D’Orville :
)( Hermann : C( Baumeister : ( Schmitt : C ()( Sikes : C)( (scil. ²)()
Allen2 : !)))κ Càssola : C/( West : Cφ !1( Führer : alii alia 326
/ !* E T Lm Pm (#H Gemoll) : λ /« OC)1 M D L P p
336 - (- P) φ μ )( Lm Pm
EI! E"MHN 195
K))7(« R !! )L / $1!!«,

, s @ C Ν)) R
C# $ , ²*! )(!" !# λ .
)5« # )« « "« c) /# )1 340
'! « )φ)!" )!!(«,
CL P1)# )α # Ν # F/ , ) ,
s # $!!! λ $ « 3 .
9

! ξ "!λ « $!φ)μ )
$ "7# 3/! *« $φ )α 345
Cμ« # i« Ν) « $7/«, Κ# Ν !!λ
Κ# Ν / !λ 3" 5@ / ,
$))# Ν))(
3/ " )
) # ³« F « $ 9

! !λ ".
Rφ ξ σ 5@ / , 350
W )# F/ 9 (!α
337 K))7(« R !! [Hes.] fr. 170.1* (= Titanom. fr. 13 Bernabé) : )L /
$1!!« cf. Hes. Op. 635 )L * $1!!« 338 s @ Il. 9.105 et al. : Ν))
R cf. h.Herm. 276*, 310* 339 cf. Od. 10.191 Ρ9 ( )« φ!" « ρ!# λ
: λ Il. 23.226* et al. 340 « "« Il. 1.154 : c ) /’ Il. 11.357* et al. :
)1 Od. 5.371* 341 '! « cf. h.Herm. 18* : )φ)!"
)!!(« Il. 1.34* et al. 342 P1)’ Od. 2.317* : Il. 12.464* : ) etc. cf.
Il. 5.741* et al. 343 s () Od. 3.73* et al. : $ Il. 5.277* et al. : 3 Il. 1.115* et
al. 344 « $!φ)μ ) cf. h.Herm. 221* 345 $ cf. h.Herm. 77* : *«
[Hes.] Sc. 62* et al. : *« vv,cv ) cf. h.Herm. 140 346 $7/« (etc.)
Il. 8.130* et al. : 346–47 Κ# Ν !!λ | Κ# Ν / ! cf. Il. 15.364, Od. 8.148
347 3" (etc.) Il. 2.611 *et al. : 5@ / cf. h.Herm. 75* 348 $))’ Ν))(
(etc.) Il. 4.268* et al. : $))’ Ν))( cf. Od. 21.327 $))’ Ν))« « : ) (etc.) cf. h.Herm.
200* : " ) cf. h.Herm. 200 7!! ) 349 ) () cf.
h.Herm. 225 350 Rφ ξ σ Il. 9.550* et al. : 5@ / cf. h.Herm. 75*
351 W )() Il. 3.381* et al. : 9 (!() Il. 4.522* et al.
348 Q.S. 12.9* $))# Ν))(

, A.R. 2.1049–50
338 M praefixis punctis 339 )(!" codd. : )9 (!" Fick | !# Al-
dina1 : F!# M : ρ!# ~ | 9
(~ 342 CL P1)# Clarke : C1)# M : C* #
~ : CL * # Stephanus in annot. | p : cett. : Barnes 343 $!!!
Ilgen : $!! M : $!!! ~ 344 ! M 346 Ν) « scripsi (cf. O. Tho-
mas 2009, 210) : Ρ# μ« codd. : ² # « Edmonds : Ρ# 3</# Ruhnkenius : Ν «
Hermann : ² )μ« Ludwich : Ν « Humbert : alii alia 347 ita interpunxit Hermann
349 " M
196 YMNO!
C λ 5 !" < (!,

Νφ !« # τ " !"« ξ λ C
/ $ *α μ # φ ! " μ« $κ
355 « P1) CL« ) " « C @.
C λ κ « ξ π!/9( <
λ )(! ² μ ξ 3, μ # 3,
) )
)9 ( λ Ω«
Ν ) * &*φ, C Cμ
360 μ« S<L ) ! 5α )) ξ / !λ
C« %* & )φ !1( $)1.
Cμ« # C $()« $* α
‘C F, C *(, C Ν)) Ν !,
C (1!#, C# r 7 $ (.’
365 - Ν # γ« Ω # Ν # Q& d"« #A*))α
E
« # σ# ' $"*« 3« (Κ,
352 C cf. h.Herm. 313* : < (! Il. 13.652* et al. 353 Νφ !« cf. h.Herm.
80* : ξ λ C etc. Il. 6.306* et al. 354 / $ * cf. Il. 21.262 /@ ) λ
) : φ ! Od. 4.444* : " μ« $7 Od. 12.77 355 « P1) Od. 2.308* : "
« cf. h.Herm. 309* : ) " « cf. Od. 12.353 " )!« ($ !«) : "
« C @ Od. 20.212* 356 C λ 7 cf. h.Herm. 52* : π!/9 ( Thgn. 48
357 ² μ ξ 3, μ # 3 cf. h.Herm. 226 358 ) ) cf. h.Herm. 254 :
)9 ( cf. Il. 8.502 et al. λ )9( : λ @« Il. 1.47* et al. : @« Il.
2.20* 359 Ν ) * cf. h.Herm. 172* : &*φ cf. Il. 12.240* et al. λ
&*φ ( *) : C C* Il. 5.22 (C*«) 360 *« Il. 12.201* : ! 5
cf. h.Herm. 415* 361 C« Il. 13.341* C7 : )φ !1( Il. 19.97* (-9 («), 19.112*
362 Cμ« # Il. 2.185* et al. : # C Od. 12.394* et al. : $()« $* cf. Il.
9.309* (μ) $()« $, Od. 1.373* : $* (etc.) Il. 1.109* et al.
363 cf. h.Herm. 263 364 cf. h.Herm. 264 365 - Ρ ’ γ« Ω ’ Ν ’ Q& Il. 1.68
et al. : d"« #A*)) cf. h.Herm. 293* 366 Ν)) Il. 7.358*, 12.232* : $-
! Il. 1.520* et al. : … 3 cf. h.Herm. 29 || ' Il. 1.247* et al. : σ#
' Il. 7.311* et al. : $"*« Il. 3.437* et al. : 3« (Κ Il. 6.54* et al.
360 A.R. 4.1012* )) ξ / !
352 )L M 355 « ~ | ) M E T : ('-))* seu ') p : ') D L

P 356 π!/ M | < > : < M 357 )(! Ilgen :
")
)(! M : )# Ν(! ~ 360 ) E L 361 %* & Ilgen coll. Od.
18.200 : % & (³- L p) codd. | $)1 > : $)& M : $) p 363 ρ M |
Ν)) E 365 - codd. : _ Barnes (et 368) 366 exhibent M D L P p (366a Càs-
sola) : E
« # Ν)) $! 3 exhibent E T Lm Pm
EI! E"MHN 197
< # « K !( α

Z , - @ ! $)(( $ 1!α
( 7« λ C ρ 51!.
_) « π &7« )« "« 370
!7 ) )).
Cξ Ν « Cξ *«,
(1 # ) $ (« Kμ ))
«,
)) # )(! ") « T C 1,
8/# ² ξ Ν« 3/ φ) « D"(«, 375
C Ω /&μ« *( – # ρ λ C*« –
Κ " )
) φλ @«.
, λ κ φ)« Κ/ ρ,
³« C F # 3)!! "*« – γ« R)"« F( –
C# Kξ Cμ 3"(α μ # $ « $ 1. 380
#H) ξ )# λ « Ν))«
367 K !( [Hes.] Sc. 56 K , !(

[Hes.] fr. 5.3 368 Z Il. 1.503* et al. : - @ Il. 24.460* et al. : @ ! Il.
4.43* et al. : $)(( $ 1! cf. Il. 23.361* $)(( $ 24.407 et al. $)(( -
)< etc., cf. h.Herm. 561 369 ( 7« Il. 18.46 N( 7«* 370 « π
Od. 7.301* : &7« )« "« cf. h.Herm. 216* 371 !7 Il. 7.30* : )
)) cf. h.Herm. 197* 372 Cξ Il. 8.281*, 9.276*
373 $ (« (etc.) Il. 4.300* et al. 374 )(! Il. 8.415* et al. : « T Hes. Th.
725* : « T C 1 Hes. Th. 868* 375 Ν« 3/ φ) « D"(« cf. Th.
988 Ν« 3/’ « D"(«, cf. Il. 11.225 D"(« « … : φ) «
cf. h.Herm. 481 φ) * ( ) 375–76 8/’ ² … | … C @ Od. 8.310
376 ρ Il. 3.308, 14.119 : λ C*« Il. 4.318* et al. 377 cf. h.Herm. 265
378 Il. 16.83* : κ φ)« Il. 22.408* et al. : Κ/ (etc.) ρ Il. 4.264* et al. : λ
κ φ)« Κ/ ρ cf. Od. 9. 529 κ ’ μ« Κ/ ρ 379 F #
3)!!, cf. Od. 13.169 (
) F # )( : 3)!! "*« cf. h.Herm. 102 : R)"« F(
Od. 18.138* R)"« ρ 380 Kξ Cμ 3"( cf. Od. 22.182 Kξ Cμ 3" Od.
7.135, 13.63 Kξ Cμ "7! : Il. 15.53* et al. $ « $ 1 etc., cf. h.Herm. 272*
$ « $ 1« 381 )# cf. Il. 6.442–43 )# « | T « … :
« Ν))« Il. 1.222*
380 A.R. 3.219 Κ () # Kξ Cμ 3# 3"
368 ! codd. : Hermann | $ 1! M : )< ~ 370 π codd. : π-
Barnes 371–2 ita interpunxi 371 # p (praeter A Q) : # add. D m. pr.
373 $ (« M 377 @« codd. : 3 Barnes coll. 265 379 ³« R)"« L P
380 μ # Hermann : * # codd. 381 ξ )# M : )# ~ (»)#
At) : ) Basileensis 1551
198 YMNO!
λ !ξ φ) λ S&α ρ! λ Cμ«

³« C F*« α # Ρ α
C # $ C *!( 1 –
385 # Ω 1) ! λ () φ κ
λ ) *α !L # ²) ! Ν (.
γ« φ# ))& K))7« #A φ*(«,
λ μ ! ρ/ # %)9 ( C# $")).
ZL« ξ # <)!! Ω (
390 σ λ !« $ 1 $φλ "*!!.
$φ « # )! ²*φ μ 3/«
&(1, E
ξ π1
λ < μ / # $")"9 (! *
Ρ9( σ# $ 5 " Fφ (.
395 ! ξ K («, # $)μ« E
«α
382 ! φ) cf. h.Dem. 117 b ! φ) : S& Od. 13.148* : ρ! λ C*«
cf. h.Herm. 376* 383 C F*« cf. Il. 19.86 Ω ’ C F*« : … Ρ
cf. h.Herm. 274; cf. h.Herm. 108* 384 C Il. 1.86* : $ Il. 5.186*
et al. 385 ’ h.Aphr. 48* : ! Il. 9.142* : () etc. Il. 3.292*, 4.348* et al.
386 λ ) (etc.) * (etc.) Il. 15.195* et al. : Ν ( (etc.) Il. 1.521* et al.
387 γ« φ() Il. 1.188* et al. : K))7« (etc.) Il. 15.518* et al. : K))7« #A φ*(«
(etc.) [Hes.] fr. 64.18* et al. 389 ZL« Il. 1.533* et al. 390 σ λ !«
Il. 10.265* et al. : $φλ "*!!() Il. 15.587* 391 $φ « etc. Il. 3.208* et
al. : ²*φ μ 3/« (etc.) Il. 22.263* et al. : μ 3/« (etc.) Il. 13.487*
et al. 392 &(1 cf. h.Apol. 215* &(1 : (etc.) Il. 2.103* et al. :
π1 cf. h.Herm. 259*. 393 $")"9 (! * Il. 10.122 $φ 9 (! *, cf.
Od. 2.236 ( φ9 (! *), 11.272 ($ 9 (! *), 23.77 () 9 (! *)
394 σ() Od. 9.311* etc. : Ρ9 ( σ# cf. Od. 10.281 9
κ σ# : " Fφ (
cf. h.Herm. 94* 395 ! Il. 8.246*, h.Dem. 445* et al. : Od. 2.103*
et al.
387 A.R. 1.485–86 γ« 3φ#· # )!! Ν( #Aφ 7« 5I«, | ))&
" ! (cf. h.Herm. 389 # <)!!) 395 IG XII,2 476.1* $)μ
E
382 ita M : ! ~ 383 # van Herwerden : # ~ : # 1

M : # @! Barnes : # # Shackle : # Ν # # Allen : # λ Ρ S-
coll. Il. 1.239 : # 7! Humbert 384 * M 385 # codd. :
Hermann | λ M : ξ ~ | φ 7 Hermann : φ@ ( M : φ7 ~ 386 p
))
387 & L
EI! E"MHN 199
W(« 3 :μ« *« */.

Ω # Νφ !1 :μ« ))
« P1) *# # # #A)φ * s<α
$ L« # < λ Κ) K5)
π/ κ / 7# $)) μ« — 9 (. 400
3# E
« ξ 3 Ω ) Ν
« φ« <7) " Fφ (α
[(U(« # $ Ω *(! "«
9 ( # )")
, / # F 1 E
α
« 1, )
, 1 "*
!, 405
o μ« Ω λ 7«; Cμ« @
*! μ !μ «α C ! / κ
μ $<!, K))7 M« ¹.
396 W(« Hes. Op. 43* : 3 h.Apol. 113* : W(« 3 cf. Il. 9.184 W(«
: :μ« *« */ Il. 15.242* 397 Ω ’ Νφ Il. 6.19 et al. : !1 (etc.)
Il. 4.225* et al. : :μ« )) cf. h.Herm. 323*, Il. 5.693 :μ« ))*
φ() 398 « P1) Od. 4.639* et al. : « P1) *() h.Apol. 398*, cf. Od. 2.308*
et al. « P1) ( : ’ #A)φ * cf. Il. 2.592 #A)φ * : * s< cf.
Il. 14.433 et al. * s< … 399 Κ) K5) cf. h.Herm. 103*
400 (7) / 7’ Od. 13.215* : / 7’ $)) cf. Il. 13.27 Ν)) ξ 7 : μ«
— 9 ( cf. h.Herm. 67* 401 ξ 3* Il. 3.422 et al. : 3() … ξ 3() Il. 18.450*
et al., cf. h.Herm. 503 402 « φ« cf. h.Dem. 338 « φ«* < : " Fφ
( cf. h.Herm. 94* 403 [(U(« cf. h.Herm. 253* : $ @ cf. Thgn. 1059
$ ² : Ω *(! Il. 11.599 : "« Il. 5.452* et al. 404 9 ( ’
)") cf. Il. 15.273 et al. )"« ( : / ’ Il. 2.193* et al. : F Il. 1.513* et al :
1 E
cf. h.Herm. 46* 405 )
(etc.) Il. 1.540* et al. :
!
Il. 21.89* 407 *! Il. 8.339* et al. : μ !* Il. 1.185* : C ! / 7 Il. 7.109*
408 K))7 cf. h.Herm. 318* : M« ¹ cf. h.Herm. 1*
401 Theoc. 7.149 ) Ν * 400 cf. Hsch. / 710 / 7 408 Hipp. 35.1*
K))7 M« (E
)

397 !1 M p (!1 f !1= B) : !1 > 398 *# # #
Wolf 1 : *# # Ruhnkenius : *# # M p : * # # > | s< Chal-
condyles : b< ~ : ρ< M 400 π/ Fick coll. SIG3 1004.16 : x/# (_/#) C (i) ~ : Ρ/
M | / 7# $)) Chalcondyles : / 7# $)) ~ ($)) T $")) E) :
/ 7 )) M 401 ~ : « M : λ van Herwerden 402 « φ« West
(φ« Hermann) cf. 258, h.Dem. 338 : « φ« codd. (φ
« cum cruce P) | -) p
403 $ M 404 ( # M | - ~ 406 M : )μ« Ω E T
407 dubitat sitne μ !μ an *! Radermacher | codd. : Stephanus
408 $<! M
200 YMNO!
γ« Ν # 3φ( λ / !λ ! φ !

410 Να λ # Kμ !!λ /μ« ρ5 φ1
C* ")( ! $))7)9 (!
W λ !9(! # $ 1)! "*!!
E ")9
! )5φ «α C #A*))
1! $ 7!«. * κ L« #A φ*(«
415 / K")7( ! 5, $ 1!!
15 @«. [(« # « ¹μ
W )# 7 ' ("*), ³« 3)# C*«,
λ * *α /) # # $ ! / μ«
)7 ) 7& «α π # Kμ / μ«
420 ! ) "(!, )!! ξ d"« #A*))
409 —« Ν ’ 3φ( cf. v. 278* : —« Ν ’ 3φ( λ / ! cf. h.Herm. 39* : / !λ ! φ cf.
Il. 19.131 / λ ! 5« : Il. 5.757* : ! (etc.) Il. 1.401* et al. :
! cf. Il. 5.386 et al. )
λ !) etc. 410 Kμ !! cf. h.Herm. 83* :
/*« cf. h.Herm. 68* : ρ5 Il. 1.387* et al. : φ1 etc. Il. 9.109* et al. : ρ5 φ1
Emp. 35.11 ρ5 ξ 7# φ1 411 C* Il. 19.77* : $))7)9 (! (etc.) Il. 3.9* et
al. 412 W Il. 3.381* : !9
(!() h.Aphr. 102* : ’ $ 1)! "*!! cf. h.Herm.
262 413 E h.Aphr. 148* : ")9
! + gen. Il. 13.524, h.Dem. 9 et al. : E ")9
!
)5φ « cf. Hes. Op. 79 :μ« ")9
! " 1 : C #A*)) cf. h.Herm.
185* 414 L« #A φ*(« Il. 24.345 et al. : ξ κ L« #A φ*(« cf.
h.Herm. 294*. 415 K")7( Il. 1.292* : ! 5 cf. h.Herm. 360* : $ 1!! cf.
h.Herm. 278* : $ 1!! cf. Hes. Th. 827* $ !! 416 @« Il. 5.301*
et al. : [(« ’ « ¹* (etc.) cf. h.Herm. 176* 417 W )’ cf. h.Herm. 351* :
W ()#) 7 cf. Hes. Th. 254 : ³« 3)# C*« cf. Od. 20.136* Rφ # 3)# C*«
418 λ * * etc. cf. h.Herm. 386* : ’ $ ! / *« Od. 5.277 : /)
# $ ! / μ« cf. h.Herm. 153 419–20 )7 ) | … "(! cf. h.Herm. 53–54*
420 )!! Il. 19.362* : d"« #A*)) cf. h.Herm. 293*
415 cf. Q.S. 8.29* /* $ 1!! 418–35 A.R. 1.494–518 (cf. p. 114)
409 post hunc versum lacunam hic statuit Baumeister 410 Ν Stephanus : Ϊ M :
4 ~ ($ L, 4 P p (4 # B)) : Ν Franke : Ν« Ludwich
411 $")( M (Stephanus) | post hunc versum puncta habet M 412 W λ
(
codd. : W# Ν Hermann | $ 1)(! M > 413 ' M 414 $ !« At
415 codd. : 1 # Martin coll. 278 | $ 1!! Lohsee : $ 1!! codd. | post
hunc versum lacunam statuit Baumeister 416 post hunc versum lacunam statuit
Radermacher 417 E T (- ex -) | 3# M 418 * codd. :
ξ Ilgen | /) scripsi coll. 153 : )"Ω codd. : )1 ( Stephanus | / μ« codd. : )1 (
M 419 « Barnes ex Martini coniectura ad v. 501 : )« codd. 420 "!! p
cf. 54
EI! E"MHN 201
(7!«, κ ξ φ « -)# κ

!!(«
« ) L« b « 9D
μ $ &α )1 9 ( # μ &
!
W# Ρ !7!« # $ ! M« ¹μ«
d" #A*))«, / ξ )« & 425
( 1# $")(, κ ¹ Q! φ7,
$« L« λ κ
³« λ ³« )/ Q !«.
M(!1( ξ $9
( M!α π )/ M« ¹*α 430

L« ξ !" λ ³« ! Q !«
$« L« :μ« $)μ« ¹μ«
# *!, ) &.
μ # 3 « !7!! $7/« F μ
421 (7!« cf. h.Herm. 499* : 7 Il. 4.276* : φ « -)’ 7 cf. Il. 10.139 λ φ «
-)’ 7 422 !!(« Il. 2.600* et al. : !!(«
« cf. h.Apol. 360 !!( ’
7 : ) L« b « 9 D cf. Il. 3.446 = 14.328 ) L« b « ¹ , Od. 22.500
μ ξ ) L« b « D 9 422–23 ) L« b « … | μ cf. Il. 3.139 et al. ) L
b cvv ) . 423 μ & h.Apol. 515* 424 !
W() Il. 7.22 : ’
$ ! Il. 2.526* et al. : M« ¹*« (etc.) cf. h.Herm. 1* 425 d" #A*))« cf.
h.Herm. 102* : / Il. 2.724* et al. : )« & cf. Il. 18.570–71 φ* )9 (|
¹ * & 426 ( 1’ Hes. Op. 260* : $")( Il. 21.364* : κ ¹ Q-
! φ7 cf. Hes. Th. 418 ([Hes.] fr. 141.18) ))7 ¹ Q! 7 427 $«
1« cf. h.Herm. 9 : 7 Od. 24.106 κ (cf. Hes. Th. 334). 428 ³«
() Od. 8.268* : ³« cf. Hes. Th. 108 F ’ ³« λ λ
: cf. Il. 6.489 (= Od. 8.553) κ (
429 M(!1( Hes. Th. 54* et al. : Il. 19.9* et al. 430 π )/ cf. Il.
23.79* D )/ : M« ¹* (etc.) cf. h.Herm. 1* 432 $« vvcv 1« cf.
Hes. Th. 391* : cf. h.Herm. 60 : :μ« $)μ« ¹*« cf. Od. 11.568. 433 ’
cf. Od. 17.549 ’ (etc.) : *! Il. 2.214* et al. : )
& cf. h.Herm. 510* & : & cf. h.Herm. 423* 434 !7!!()
Il. 5.513* et al. : F Il. 21.490* et al. : F * Il. 4.531*
428 cf. E. Supp. 309 φ λ ! )/ 429 Bacch. 6.14–15
*« $|« : cf. Theoc. 22.223 ξ « ))! $
421 ξ om. E | -)# codd. (Stephanus) : _)# Chalcondyles 422 om. ~ 423 μ
West : )
codd. 425 ))« x 426 Q! (Q T) codd. : 3) West
427 codd. : ) Hermann : Stephanus 429 $μ M 430 D L
431 ξ codd. : ξ λ M | !" Matthiae : !"( codd. | Q !« ~ : Ϊ«
$φ7
M 434 F T2
202 YMNO!
435 φ7!« 3 * !(1α

"φ*, (/, 1 μ« '
7 " $< ()«.
π!/« λ 3 ! S.
# Ν * , )1 M« ¹·
440 _ ! #
« # Ϊ# Q! 3
_ « $ _ ( $ @
$μ 3 λ 3φ ! ! $7;
!( 7 7φ R!! $ 1,
p Κ @ φ( 7 Κ # $
445 Κ # $ θ #O)1 @# 3/!,
*!φ !, φ)
:μ« λ M« ¹.
« /(, « ! $(/ )@,
« "«; $ « Ϊ !
Cφ !1( λ 3 λ D 8 ')!.
435 Il. 1.201 et al. 436 1 etc. Il. 4.374* et al. : μ« ' cf. h.Herm. 31*
437 7 " Il. 11. 678* : $< etc. Il. 9.401* : ()« cf. Il. 19.213
() 438 λ 3 cf. h.Herm. 291* : ! S Od. 18.149* 439 cf. Il.
10.384 et al. $))’ Ν * : ’ Ν Il. 1.141* : )1 etc. cf. h.Herm. 13* :
M« ¹ (etc.) cf. h.Herm. 1* 440 - ! () Il. 23.594 :
« Il. 24.535 et al. : Ϊ’
Q! (etc.) Il. 3.376* et al. : 3 [Hes.] fr. 204.45* 441 cf. h.Dem. 22; _ «
Od. 4.489* et al. : _ « $ cf. Il. 6.128* « $ : _ ( $ @
h.Dem. 55* 442 … 3 cf. Il. 23.745 et al. : ! $7 Od. 1.328*, 17.385
(! $*), Hes. Th. 31–32 (Cκ | !) : 3φ ! ! $7 Od. 8.498 c!
! $7 443 !( cf. Hes. Th. 584* ! : R!! $ 1 etc. Od. 1.282
et al. 444 p Κ Il. 10.293* : p Κ @ () Od. 23.328 : 7 Il. 6.150* et al. :
Κ ’ Il. 15.72* et al. 445 Κ # $ Thgn. 750* Κ $, cf.
h.Herm. 534–35 : θ #O)1 @’ 3/! Hes. Th. 804* et al. 446 :μ« λ M«
¹ etc. cf. h.Herm. 1* 447 )@ etc. Hes. Op. 66* : $(/ )@ cf.
Mimn. 6.1* $ ) )@ 448 $ « Il. 2.210* : Ϊ … cf. Il. 4.320 et
al. Ϊ etc. : ! Il. 8.294* et al. 449 D 8 cf. h.Herm. 241 : D
8 ')! cf. Il. 7.482 et al. 8 Q)
443 cf. A.R. 1.1095–96 ( Ω R!! Ν ! | $) *« 4)(«
437 ()« codd. : (« Page apud West : # $φ(« Stadtmüller

438 ! M D : ! At cett. 440 _ ~ : ν M (Aldina1) |
« ~
441 _1 Allen1 : ξ codd. | _2 Càssola : ξ codd. 443 super 7φ nonnihil scriptum
habet T ((? ?) 446 φ)
Aldina1 : φ)( M > : φ()( p : φ)
Chalcondyles :
φ()
Barnes | versui puncta praeponit M 447 $(/ codd. : ($(/) sic van
Herwerden 449 7 p
EI! E"MHN 203
λ Ω M1!9 (! #O)!! S(*«, 450

9

! / )! λ $)μ« ρ« $
«
λ )κ ) λ ¹ *« " *« C)α
$))# Κ @ o φ !λ Ν)) )(!
s )9(« < 3 )α
&, :μ« ¹, # ³« μ &«. 455
# λ σ S)« Ω ) 7 ρ«
b&, , λ !" !.
)« 3! $! !
! # C)
λ ( α μ # $ « $ 1!α
λ * $ *, _ ξ @ ! 460
μ $! R)" π*# Q!!
@! # $) λ « )« C $7!.
μ # E
« 1! $" )!α
450 λ cf. h.Herm. 378 : λ @() Il. 2.377* et al. : M1!9 (! #O)!! cf.
Il. 2.491 et al. #O)« M! : #O)!! [Hes.] fr. 129.5*, 252.2* : S(*« cf. Il.
2.184* et al. S( etc. 451 9

!() etc. Il. 6.298* et al. : )! Hes. Th. 216* : $)*«
(etc.) Il. 1.377* etc. : ρ« Hes. Op. 290* : $
« (etc.) cf. h.Herm. 429* 452 " *«
C) h.Hom. 14.3* 453 $))’ Κ Il. 2.799* et al. : φ ! cf. h.Herm. 164* :
)(! etc. Il. 5.430* et al. 454 )9 (« Od. 11.603* et al. : < Il. 9.236* et al. :
) (etc.)* Il. 10.351 et al. 455 & (etc.) Il. 10.12* et al. : :μ« ¹ (etc.) Il. 1.9*
et al. : μ &« etc. cf. h.Apol. 515* 456 ’ Il. 9.344* et al. : λ σ
Il. 1.57* et al. : vvc @ (etc.) Il. 1.131* et al. : 7 ρ« (etc.) Il. 18.363* et al.
457 Il. 15.437* et al. : b& cf. Il. 5.109 R ! : cf. Il. 2.335
7!« 458 Il. 9.304* : cf. Il. 10.173 7 : )«
3! Il. 7.451* : $! ! Il. 1.520* 459 ! ’ C) Hes. Op. 56* : λ (
Il. 14.502* et al. : μ ’ $ « $ 1! cf. h.Herm. 380* 460 λ * Il.
1.234* 461 * cf. Hes. Op. 257* 7 : $! Il. 1.398* et al. : λ R)"
cf. Hes. Op. 826* λ R)"« 462 $) Il. 1.213 : @! ’ $) cf. Od.
4.589 @! $) : λ « )« Hes. Op. 294* : « )« Hes. Op. 218 : $7!
(etc.) Il. 9.344* 463 cf. h.Herm. 162
462 A.R. 3.152 _ < C# $7! (cf. p. 115)
451 / μ« omisso M | 8« M xm, recepit Baumeister 453 Ν)) )(! M, praetulit
Ruhnkenius : o )(! ~ | )(! M P 454 codd. : Gemoll
456 ρ! M 457–58 om. ~ 457 Ruhnkenius : μ M : )
Gemoll | huic
versui apponit puncta M 459 μ # Hermann : *# codd. 460 At A f :
(vel U) codd. ( B) : Chalcondyles : (sc. -
) Martin : Ilgen : Fick : Ludwich | 3 E T L
461 π*# Q!! Agar : π1! codd. : π*# b! Tyrrell : π*# D! Humbert
204 YMNO!
)»« # E ξ φ «; C Ω !

465 /(« π (« "7 Κ .
!7 7!«α ) -« ρ
")9
λ 1!. !L ξ φ !λ # σ ρ«α
« , :μ« ¹, # $! !!«
1« *« α φ) ! ( ZL«
470 !(« ²!(«, 3 $)
λ «α !ξ φ! 7 :μ« Sφ
«
«, E α :μ« !φ α
Cμ« @ !, , $φμ ( .
!λ # C * ! 7 Ρ )»«.
475 $))# λ σ μ« 1 &,
464 ) »« ’ Od. 5.97* : ' etc. cf. h.Herm. 239* : C @ Il. 3.290 et al.
465 "7 Il. 9.133* et al. : /(« "7 cf. h.Herm. 166 /(« "7! : Κ
Il. 7.408* et al. 466 !7 cf. h.Herm. 371* : ) -« ρ Il. 8.40*
et al. 467 ")9
λ 1! Il. 4.323* et al. : !L ξ φ ! Il. 19.174* et al. : ρ« cf.
h.Herm. 456* : σ ρ« cf. Il. 1.185* et al. σ 9
« etc. 468 « etc. Il. 4.480* :
:μ« ¹ cf. h.Herm. 455* : ’ $! cf. h.Herm. 16* : !!« etc. Il. 9.194* et al.
469 1« *« cf. Il. 2.653 et al. 1« « , Hes. Th. 670 et al.
(etc.) * : φ) ! etc. Il. 10.245* et al. : φ) ! ( Z1« Il. 2.197* (') 470
!(« cf. Od. 4.723* ! : 3 $) cf. Od. 16.230* 3
$) 471 λ « etc. Hes. Th. 422* : 7 cf. h.Herm. 205* : :*« Il.
1.63* et al. : Sφ
« etc. Il. 2.41* et al. 472 E cf. h.Herm. 307* : :μ« Hes. Th.
348* et al. : !φ (etc.) Od. 7.143* et al. : !φ Od. 11.297 : :μ« !φ
cf. Il. 5.64 !φ 473 Il. 1.407* et al. : Cμ« @ Il. 15.234* et al. :
@ ! Il. 2.261 et al. 474 cf. Od. 16.148 « F( C " ! : Ρ
) »« cf. Od. 2.92 Ν)) ) » etc. 475 $))# Il. 9.119* et al. : $))# λ σ Od.
14.467* et al.
475 Archil. 196a.3 # τ ! μ« 1 : Man. 3.399–400 $))# λ σ
*« … $! 7!()
464 $ M | ita interpunxi 467 ita interpunxit Evelyn-White 468 !!« M

470–2 ita interpunxit Matthiae 471 !ξ ξ M : ! ~ 472 « E Mat-
thiae : « # (vel ’) ' codd. (# corr. ex # P : # V) | Stephanus : ( )
codd. 473 E T Lm Pm : λ cett. | @ ! Hermann : 3 codd. | , $φμ
Allen : # $φμ codd. : « !# S<1 Martin : φ Hermann : )# $φμ
Evelyn-White : # $φ Tyrrell : # $φμ (sc. … $φμ) Radermacher :
λ φ West 1966b, p. 150 474 C * Chalcondyles : σ# $ μ codd.,
cf. 489 475 M
EI! E"MHN 205
) λ & λ $)U« $)

« < α !L , φ), « R&.
C*) / !λ 3/ )1φ ' (,
) λ σ *! !« $ 1.
Κ ()« ξ 3 φ « ) 480
λ / μ ¹ * λ « φ) ,
Cφ !1( *« λ -«. Ρ« « r Cκ
/9
( λ !φ9( (« < 9 (,
φ( *) / ! ,
W !(9(! $ ( ) 9
!, 485
!( φ1! 7· χ« Cκ

« Ω μ &φ)« 9 (,
5 Κ« 3 7 ))&.
476 & Il. 18.570* et al. : $)U« (etc.) Od. 15.78* et al. : $) etc. Od. 11.186* et al. :
$)U« $) cf. h.Aphr. 11 $) 3 # $)1 477 « Il. 2.794* et al. : <
Il. 1.525* : !L Il. 6.430* et al. : R& (etc.) Il. 8.103* et al. : « R& (etc.) Il.
8.141* 478 / ! Il. 5.344* et al. : / !λ 3/ Il. 15.717* et al. 479 σ
*! Il. 11.48* et al. : ) λ σ *! cf. Il. 10.471–72 3 … | ) …
) σ *! : !« etc. Il. 2.611* et al. : $ 1 Il. 1.571* et al.
480 Κ ()« (etc.) Il. 17.371* et al. : ξ 3 Il. 3.422* et al. cf. h.Herm. 401*, 503* : «
) Od. 3.420* («), cf. Il. 7.475, Od. 8.76 481 ¹ * (etc.) Il. 3.397* et
al. : / μ ¹ * cf. Il. 18.603, Od. 18.194 et al. : φ) cf. h.Herm. 375*
482 Cφ !1( cf. h.Herm. 449* : *« λ -« Od. 10.86* 483 < 9( etc.
Od. 12.259* et al. 484 φ( Il. 10.547* = Od. 22.329* : / etc. Od. 8.167*
et al. : ! Thgn. 389* 485 W Il. 2.475* et al. : ) 9
! etc. Il. 1.582* et al.
486 χ« Il. 15.494* et al. 487 μ Il. 4.159* et al. : &φ)« Il. 9.516* et
al. : 9
( etc. Il. 6.145* et al. 488 5 Il. 2.214* et al. : 5 Κ« Od. 16.111* et al., Il.
20.348, cf. Il. 2.210 5 8 : 3 Il. 8.25* et al. : 7 Il. 8.26*
478 cf. [Orph.] A. 5* )1φ $7 483 cf. [Orph.] A. 126 ()7)
/9
( : Max. 9.452* /( ν !φ( 7 : P.Oxy. VII 1015.20 M! !φ(«
(« 487 A.R. 2.417*
« @
477 versui puncta apponit M 478 ) 1φ E T | ' p 479 !« v.
l. dedit Barnes (canendi arte imbutus vertit Jodocus Velareus) : !« codd. : -
!( Barnes 480 ξ codd. : (Κ ()*«) van Herwerden 481 φ)
M > : φ) / p 482 *« om. E | r codd. (r λ M) : Ν # Chal-
(
condyles 483 7« M | < E T 484 * p 486 φ1! M :
φ! ~ : )! Schneidewin 487 Ω M | ~ 488 Κ« Wolf 2 :
8« codd. | ))& Ruhnkenius ( )& Schneidewin) : )& codd.
206 YMNO!
!λ # C * ! 7 Ρ )»«.

490 Ω @! 1(, :μ« $)ξ α
π« # σ# R *« λ ¹"*
"!λ 1«, E , 1! $ 1)!.
3 Ϊ)« <! "*« 1 ! !
( ()« λ Ν !«· C ! / κ
495 ) * &« /)!.
γ« Ω c <#, ² # < d"« #A*)),
E 9
# )< 3/ ! φ7,
" )« # ))· 3 ξ M« ¹μ«
(7!«α ξ )"Ω # $ ! / μ«
500 [(« $)μ« ¹μ«, Ν< ' « #A*)),
)7 ) 7& «· π # Kμ
! ) "(!, μ« # Kμ )μ Ν!.
3 "*« ξ 3 λ & )
(α Cλ ξ :μ« ))
489 = 473 490 @ Od. 6.32* : @! Il. 9.147* et al. : :μ« $)ξ cf. Od.
11.568* :μ« $)μ ¹*, h.Herm. 432* 491 π« ’ σ() Od. 9.266 et al. : R « Od.
2.147* : Il. 2.785* et al. 492 "! Il. 7.333* : E cf. h.Herm. 307* : $ 1-
)! etc. Il. 10.155* et al. : "! … $ 1)! cf. h.Herm. 263, 272, 412. 493 3
Ϊ)« cf. h.Herm. 179* : "*« Il. 9.406* et al. : ! etc. cf. Od. 1.73*, h.Herm. 4* et al.
494 7)« λ Ν !« cf. Hes. Th. 667* : ! / 7 Il. 7.109* et al. 495 -
) etc. Il. 10.44* : * Il. 4.534* et al. : &« cf. [Hes.] fr. 204.126* &-
« : /)! Il. 9.523* et al. 496 γ« @ cf. h.Herm. 227* : ² ’ < Od.
8.483* et al. : d"« #A*)) cf. h.Herm. 293* 497 E 9
cf. h.Herm. 1* : )<
cf. Od. 8.319* )< : 3/ Od. 2.336* et al. : ! φ7 (etc.) Il. 10.500* et al.
498 " )« Hes. Th. 445* : )) Il. 4.229* et al. : M« ¹*« cf. h.Herm. 1*
499 (7!« cf. h.Herm. 421 : )"Ω ’ $ ! / *« cf. h.Herm. 418* 500 [(«
$)μ« ¹*« cf. h.Herm. 314 : Ν< ' « #A*)) cf. h.Herm. 333* 501–502 cf.
h.Herm. 53–54, 419–20 503 3 Il. 1.610* et al. : ξ 3 Il. 3.422* et al. : λ &
) cf. h.Herm. 221 504 Cλ Il. 11.49 et al. : :μ« )) cf. h.Herm.
323*
489 C * Chalcondyles : σ# $ μ codd., cf. 474 491 σ# codd., recepit Mat-

thiae : σ Chalcondyles 493 # Q<! M 494 usque ad h.Aphr. 152 om. P excisis foliis
495 &« p 497 3/ D’Orville, Matthiae : 3/ codd. : ' Ω Martin : ')Ω
Goodwin coll. Il. 11.488, 23.219, 24.735 499 om. M 501 « Martin coll. 53 :
)« (-))- E L T) codd. | Kμ M : Kμ )μ ~ (cf. 502) : Kμ / μ« Schneidewin :
K Goodwin 502 ! ) M : ¹ * ~ | "!! p, cf. 54 | )μ M
(Barnes) : )« ~ ())« x) | Ν! codd. : Ν Ilgen coll. 54 503 3 ~ : W M
| "*« ~ | & M 504 ( M : ( (servato "*«) Marzullo apud
Bonanno 1970, p. 62.
EI! E"MHN 207
Ν5 μ« 5O) $φ @! 505

* φ* , / ( # Ν ( Z1«,
Νφ # « φ)*( !7. λ ξ E
«
[(U( φ)(! «, ³« 3 λ
!7#, λ ξ E ("*)) )<
¹ 7, Ω« ² # ) &α 510
Cμ« # σ# ' (« !φ(« !! /(·
! κ 7! ()*# $ !7.
λ * [(U(« E
μ« 3·
, M« ¹, , )
,
7 $ )59 (« λ 1) *<α 515
κ Z(μ« 3/« " 3
7! $ @! /* )"* .
505 Ν5 etc. Il. 4.152 et al. : Ν5 (etc.) *« cf. Il. 12.74 et al. Ν5 : μ«
5O) Il. 1.194* et al. : μ« 5O) $φ Il. 1.420* : 5O) $φ cf.
h.Herm. 325* : @! Il. 24.616* et al. 506 * etc. Od. 4.17* et al. :
* (etc.) φ* Il. 9.186, cf. 18.526* * !1 <, Thgn. 778 *
9 ( λ 9
)9( : / ( ’ Ν Il. 5.682* : ( Z1« cf. h.Herm. 469*
507 Νφ ’ Il. 3.211* et al. : « φ)*( Hes. Op. 712* : λ cf. h.Herm. 62
508 φ)(! Od. 8.63* : « cf. h.Herm. 167* : ³« 3 λ Il. 23.787* : 3 λ Il.
9.105* et al. 509 !7# Od. 19.250* = 23.206*, ~ 24.346* : ' ("*)) Il. 22.302* et al. : -
)< etc. Il. 1.353* et al. 510 ¹ 7 Hes. Th. 577* ¹ 1« : @« Od. 17.519* :
) & cf. h.Herm. 433 511 Cμ« # σ# Il. 13.642* et al. : (!φ(«)
!! /( cf. h.Herm. 108*, Od. 4.529* et al. φ !! /( 512 !
7 cf. Il. 10.13 C) ! # 7 : 7! Il. 5.735* et al. 513 λ * Il.
1.92* et al. : μ« 3 cf. h.Herm. 300* 514 Il. 21.536* : M« ¹ cf.
h.Herm. 301 : etc. cf. h.Herm. 392* : )
(etc.) Il. 11.482* et al. 515 7
Il. 3.64* et al. : λ 1) *< cf. h.Apol. 131 : 1) *< Il. 3.17* et al.
516 Z(*« Il. 11.795* et al. : κ Z(μ« 3/« Od. 11.302 κ μ« Z(μ« 3-
/« 517 7! Il. 2.39* et al. : /* h.Dem. 47* : /* )"*
cf. Il. 3.89 et al.
511 Bion fr. 1.2 !φ # / (cf. h.Herm. 108)
507 λ M : λ μ ~ λ ² f2c (Ernesti) : # ² Ruhnkenius : W# ² Matthiae

508–509 ita interpunxi 508 post hunc versum lacunam statuit West 509 !
# ~ |
( ~ 510 om. M | ) Ilgen coll. 433 : K) codd. | ita interpunxit
Ernesti 513 '
!, ! eraso M 515 Ϊ )59 (« M | ( ~ (cf. 509)
516 " Wolf 2 : # $" ~ : # (corr. ex $#) $"( M 517 )"*-
B f } Qc V (Parisiensis) : )"* M > A Qac
208 YMNO!
$))# F )(« Ρ S*!!,

ν φ)9
1!« ν λ μ« R" 8 ,
520 # r ) )
/ ! λ φ) 3 «.
λ * M« ¹μ« K!/*« !
7 # $ )5 Ρ!# E ("*)« !,
( # )! ) *)· C #A*))
[(U(« ! # $ ) λ φ)*(
525 7 φ) Ν)) $! 3!!,
7 μ 7# Ν :μ« *· ξ )
!1") $ 7! # Ϊ «
!μ ) ) λ · C 3
R)" λ )1 @! )) W"
530 / !( (), $ 7 D ! φ)<,
518 cf. Od. 5.178, 10.343, h.Apol. 79 519 φ)9

1!« cf. Od. 16.283, 18.154 : 8
Il. 14.435* et al. : R" 8 Il. 4.453* : μ« R" 8 cf. Hes. Th. 805* μ«
Νφ 8 520 / ! cf. Hes. Op. 683 ) ) / !«, Il. 5.243 et al. :
φ) 3 « Od. 15.360* 521 λ * cf. h.Herm. 513* : M« ¹*« cf. h.Herm. 73* :
K!/*« etc. Il. 9.576* et al. : K!/*« ! cf. Il. 2.112 et al. K!/ λ
! 522 7 # Il. 7.343* et al. : E ("*)« cf. h.Herm. 509* 523 ( ’
Hes. Op. 717* et al. : ) etc. Il. 4.392* et al. : )
*) etc. Il. 10.267* et al. : C
#A*)) cf. h.Herm. 185* 524 [(U(« cf. h.Herm. 508* : ! Il. 10.393*
525 φ) … $! cf. Il. 20.334 φ) « $! : φ) Ν)) Il.
24.46 : $! Il. 24.107* et al., cf. Il. 7.102 et al. $!* ! : 3!! Il.
5.644* et al. 526 :μ« * Il. 5.635* 527 !1") cf. h.Herm. 30* : 7!
etc. Il. 7.339* et al. : 7! Hes. Op. 209* 528 ) ) cf. h.Herm. 520* :
h.Apol. 483* : C 3 cf. h.Herm. 126* 529 R)" λ )1 cf. Il. 16.596 R)")
)1) , Hes. Op. 637 )* λ R)", h.Hom. 30.12 R)"« ξ )L« λ )«
S( : )) cf. h.Herm. 397* : )) W" cf. Od. 10.293, 12.251 7 =
W") 530 / !( etc. Il. 1.246* et al. : $ 7 etc. Il. 5.812* et al. : φ)< etc. Il.
16.686* et al. : $ 7 D ! φ)< cf. Od. 20.47 ξ« D ! φ)!!
524 cf. [A.] Pr. 191 « $ μ λ λ φ)*(

518 codd. : Mm in rasura quae Υ Υ celare videtur 519 ν λ μ« codd. :
ξ μ« Hermann | R" > B f V 522 7# pro 7 # M | ! E T,

! M (vox est reficta ab Mac) 524 $ M 526 ξ codd. : ξ Her-
mann | post hunc versum lacunam statuit Allen1 527 $ scripsi : $ codd. |
(Ϊ) « Richardson : Ϊ codd. : $ @ Schneidewin | post hunc versum
=
lacunam statuit Radermacher 530 $ 7 L : $ 7 p | ita interpunxit Preller
EI! E"MHN 209
« ! L« λ 3

$ Ρ! φ(λ 7 :μ« Sφ
«.
( , φ !, ξ« p «,
Κ ! !φ* ! 7 Κ # Ν))
$· μ ρ :μ« *«· C @ 535
!λ« ! λ c! μ Ρ
7 *!φ
Ν)) # F!! Z(μ« *φ ")7.
λ !1, !( / !* , 7 )
!φ φ1! Ρ! 7 C 1 Z1«. 540
$ @ # Ν)) ()7!, Ν)) S7!,
)) $ φ)# $ @.
λ ξ
« Sφ
« $7! Ρ« « r 3)9 (
φ9
# ξ 9

! )( ·
531 λ 3 cf. h.Herm. 46. 532 $ Thgn. 1167* : Ρ! φ( Il.
10.51* : φ( 7 :μ« Sφ
« cf. h.Herm. 471. 533 ( cf. h.Herm. 472* :
φ ! Il. 6.123* et al. : « cf. h.Herm. 167* : D (etc.) « cf. 10.558* et al.
534 Κ ! Il. 4.359* : !φ* ! Il. 8.477* et al. : Κ ’ Ν)) etc. Il. 15.72* et al. :
7 Κ # Ν)) cf. h.Herm. 444* 7 Κ # $ . 535 $ Il.
5.828* et al. : :μ« *« cf. h.Herm. 10* : C @ Il. 1.282* et al. 536 ! cf.
h.Herm. 521* : λ c! (etc.) μ Ρ Od. 4.253* et al. : μ Ρ Il.
19.108* : !« … λ c! … Ρ cf. Od. 15.436 Ρ ) !
537 *!φ
h.Dem. 72* et al. : etc. Il. 2.400* et al. 538 Ν)) # Od. 17.383* :
Z(μ« vvcvv ")7 cf. Il. 1.5* 539 λ !1 Il. 4.339* et al. : !( Il. 4.155* et
al. : / !* (etc.) Od. 5.87* 540 !φ Od. 11.297* : Ρ! Il. 22.118* et al. :
7 Il. 21.413* C 1 Z1« Il. 5.265* : 7 C 1 Z1« cf. Il. 7.478*, Od.
14.243* 7 ( Z1« 541 $ @ (etc.) Il. 3.279* et al. : ()7! (etc.) Od.
8.444* et al. : S7! cf. h.Herm. 35* 542 )) cf. Od. 9.465 : φ)’ $-
@ Od. 3.282* et al. : $ φ)’ $ @ cf. h.Apol. 289* $!φ φ)’ $-
@ 543 $7! Il. 11.763* : Ρ« « Ν cf. h.Herm. 483* 544 )( cf.
)7« Hes. Th. 242*, 959*
531 Hsch. 255 1«· !« 533–34 cf. [Orph.] A. 33 $φλ ξ («
(« 544 Call. Lav.Pall. 123–24 ! # R /«, χ« F!« b | Ν)
λ C $λ «
531 L« Ludwich : L« codd. : F« Hermann : (» ) )« Bothe 532–34 in
unum conflavit (scil. a priore ad alterum 7 transiit) omisso 533 p 533 ξ«
M : φξ« > | p « codd. : ν 9
(« Hermann 534 Ν)) M 535 om.
ET 537 M 538 &(μ« fact. ex - M | μ Tac 540 φ! p | "1-
) D 542 M 543 λ κ D : λ κ M | Ρ!« r 3)9
( > : Ρ!« r
3) p : C# $7! M Aac (ex v. 545) 544 φ9
# ξ 9

! Ruhnkenius : φ7 #
*(! M : φ
λ 1!! ~
210 YMNO!
545 i«
« Sφ
« $7! C# $7!.
χ« 5)*! 7!« !
( )9(! ξ * <
π (, ξ ) ξ *,
φ7#, 4)( ²μ ρ!, Ω /(.
550 Ν)) , M(« « ¹ξ
λ :μ« */, 1 ·
!λ « !, !( ,
, % 9(! $))* 1!!,
«· ξ μ« ) Ν)φ )
555 ! Kμ /λ P (!,
(« $ ! ) p λ "!λ
« 3# Ω )(!· κ # μ« C $)&.
- @ Ν)) Ν))9 (
545 C’ $7! (etc.) Od. 4.348* et al. 546 Ρ« Il. 17.229* et al. : 7!« -
! cf. Il. 4.398, 6.183 !! 7!« 547 ( cf. h.Herm. 472* : )9 (-
!() Il. 1.408* : ξ * Il. 10.391* : < cf. h.Herm. 483* 548 π ( Il.
6.151* et al. : ξ * (etc.) Il. 1.290* et al. 549 4)( ²* cf. Od. 2.273*, 2.318* :
@ () Il. 1.137* et al. 550 Ν)) Il. 1.297* et al. : M(« « ¹
cf. h.Herm. 89* 551 :μ« */ Il. 2.787* : h.Hom. 30.16* : 1 -
cf. Il. 3.65* et al. . 552 ! etc. h.Dem. 478* et al. :
!( (etc.) Il. 6.102* et al. : cf. Il. 3.199 et al. 553
(etc.) Il. 2.514* : $))* (etc.) Il. 12.114* et al. : $))* 1!! cf. Il.
2.462* : 1!!() Od. 2.149* : % 9 (! vcvvc 1!! cf. Hes. Th. 269.
554 « Il. 11.27* et al. : *« Od. 10.362, h.Apol. 74. : ) (etc.) Il. 6.268*
et al. : Ν)φ ) Il. 11.640* et al. 555 Il. 12.168* etc. : ! Il. 9.23* et
al. : ! (etc.) Il. 17.308*, cf. Il. 6.15 : Kμ /λ P (!*
h.Apol. 269. 556 (« cf. h.Herm. 472* : $ Il. 1.35* et al. : λ "! Od.
20.209* 557 « 3’ @ Od. 18.216* : κ ’ *«* Il. 9.453 et al. : C $)& (etc.)
Il. 1.180* et al. : κ ’ μ« C $)& cf. Il. 11.80 ξ Ν ’ C $)& 7
558 -* Il. 15.163, Hes. Th. 405 et al. : Ν)) Ν))9 ( etc. Od. 4.236* et al.
549 cf. A.R. 3.1176 " # F, C# 4)! ²* 552 A.R. 3.535* !7( -
558 A.R. 1.881–82 λ ξ (sc. )!!) ) L Ν))# # Ν)) | μ
$ ! (
547 )7! M > 549 φ

# $)( M : φ
# E T : φ(# L | ξ λ M 550 ¹*« M
552 !λ M : ~ : > λ Hermann :
Feyel 555 (!! M
556 ! ) λ M 557 $)& Hermann : $) M > : $) p ($)
f) 558 - Càssola : # - codd. : κ 3 Wolf | Ν)) Ν))9
( Schneidewin :
Ν))# # Ν))( codd.
EI! E"MHN 211
( "*! ! Q !.
¹ # Ρ ξ ! ( ) /) μ 560
φ « )! $)(( $ 1·
ν # $!φ!! π κ
51 - # $))7) !.
« 3 , !L # $ «
!κ C φ , λ " μ Ν 9
(« 565
)) !
« Sφ
« 1! F 1/9 (!.
# 3/ M« ¹· λ $ 1)« Q) « "«
b« # $φ*) λ π*« ) 1«α
λ / ! )! λ $ *! !1!!
λ !λ λ 7)!, Ρ! φ C /@, 570
»! # λ "! $!! 1 E
.
ρ # « #AU( )! Ν) ρ,
559 Il. 9.510* et al. 560 b (etc.) ’ Ρ Il. 1.432* et al. : θ ’ Ρ Il. 20.226* :
) /) * Od. 10.234* 561 φ « Il. 6.173* et al. : )!() Il. 3.241* et al. :
$)(( Il. 23.361* : $)(( $ 1 cf. h.Herm. 368* : )! $)(( $ 1
cf. Od. 14.125 )! $)( 7!! 562 7 (etc.) Il. 8.504* et al.
563 ! cf. Il. 17.55* ! 564 3 Il. 7.360 et al. : $ « cf.
h.Herm. 380* : cf. h.Herm. 487* 565 !κ C φ Mimn. 7.1*, cf.
Thgn. 794* κ ! φ , Il. 1.474 ² ξ φ # $ 1 et al. : " μ
Ν Il. 19.22* et al. 566 )) Il. 1.396* et al. : !
« Sφ
« cf. h.Herm. 543
«
Sφ
« : F 1/9(! cf. Il. 5.279*, 7.243* F 1/ 567 M« ¹ cf. h.Herm. 514* :
Q) « "« Il. 18.524* et al. : $ 1)« Q) « "« cf. Il. 9.466* et al. )« Q) «
"« 568 b« Il. 3.260* et al. : π*« ) 1« (etc.) Od. 4.636* et al.
569 / ! )! cf. Od. 11.611 et al. : $ *! !1!! cf. Il. 9.539 !…
$ * 570 ! cf. Il. 11.325* () !, 12.303* (!L) ! : 7)! Il. 10.485*
et al. : Ρ! φ C /@ Il. 11.741* 571 1 E
cf. h.Herm. 130*
572 )! Hes. Th. 795* : Ν) Il. 18.182* : Ν) ρ (etc.) cf. Il. 2.26* et
al.
559 cf. Theoc. 7.85* ( φ "*« 565 Theoc. 27.14 κ ! φ 5
560 !! > : 1!! p | p 561 )! x (-! E) 563 exhibet xm |
! Baumeister : ! xm | # - ξ< ²μ π1 (563a
Càssola) exhibent codd. omnes : ( At 565 !L L | ν D : - E | Ν 9
(«
Schneidewin : Ν (« ~ edd. vett. : Ν # $
in extremo versu M 566 )) «
M : )) !
« L | 1! codd. : $7! Hermann coll. 543 et 545 | F M D
p Aldina1 : ρ x Chalcondyles 568 ita interpunxi | post hunc versum lacunam statuit
Wolf 2 | 568 post 571 transposuit E 572 s M Chalcondyles | # om. D
212 YMNO!
Ρ« # Ν*« Ω @! « C )/!.

8 M« ¹μ Ν< φ)(! #A*))
575 ( φ)*(, / # ( K .
»! # Ρ (! λ $! ²)·
ξ σ S(!, μ # Ν 1
1 # S φ( φ) ( $ @.
λ !L ξ 8 / , :μ« λ M« ¹·
580 C Ω λ ! λ Ν))(« 7!# $
«.
573 @ Il. 11.721* et al. : « Il. 1.118* et al. 574 8 Il. 9.524* et al. : M«
¹* cf. h.Herm. 514*; Ν< vvcv #A*)) cf. Il. 7.23* et al. Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)),
cf. Il. 1.36, Hes. Th. 347 #A*)) Ν 574–75 cf. Od. 15.246 Ρ λ
φ) Z1«
# /« λ #A*)) | ( φ)*(* 575 / Il. 5.874* et al. : ( () Il.
4.111* et al. : K Il. 1.528* et al. 576 cf. Il. 12.242 χ« »! (! λ $!
$!! : »! Il. 2.143* et al. : Ρ Il. 9.206* et al : (! Il. 10.403* et al. : λ $-
!() Il. 20.64* et al. : ²) Il. 18.194* et al. 577 Il. 3.214* : Ν etc. Il.
14.205* : 1 etc. Il. 3.399* et al. 578 1 ’ S φ( Il. 10.83* et al. : φ)
( $ @ [Hes.] fr. 240.4* 579 λ !L ξ 8 / * h.Hom. 1.20 et al. : :μ«
λ M« ¹ cf. h.Herm. 1* 580 = h.Dem. 495 et al.
575 ( φ)*( scripsi, coll. Od. 15.245–46 : 9
( φ)*( codd. 576 $-
! ²) Stephanus : $! ²) ~ : $! & M 577 »! E
(corr. in » m. pr. T)
213
Commentary
214 Commentary
Title
The Hymn’s title is transmitted in different forms. Some manuscripts

introduce the poem simply as « E
(D, L, P) or « μ E

(p). M offers C 8 « E
; this should be punctuated
thus: C 8· « E
(‘Hymns by the same poet [i.e.
Homer]; to Hermes’). Cf. the title of h.Apol. as transmitted in p: 8
²7 · « μ #A*)), and the discussions in Richardson (1974,
136) and Faulkner (2008, 68). In E and T, finally, h.Herm. is entitled
8« 1 « « E
(Gemoll reports that the title in E is written
in red ink, and the circumflex of '
is corrected with black
ink). Here, too, we should punctuate in a similar fashion, viz. 8«
1 «· « E
: This is not a second Hymn to Hermes (contrast
h.Hom. 6, which directly follows the longer Hymn to Aphrodite and
is introduced in M as C « κ Cκ #Aφ (), but the
second Hymn in the manuscripts, which is dedicated to Hermes. How-
ever, the following Hymns are not numbered, nor is h.Hom. 18, which is
also dedicated to Hermes, referred to as the second Hymn to Hermes.
An ancestor of such titles may be found in P.Oxy. LXVIII 4667
(3 c.) where at line 10 we read ]c
[;
rd 3 this can be articulated [«
:*]! 8
[«]. See further Aloni (1980, 29) for the ways in which
ancient authors referred to the Homeric Hymns when quoting from
them.
1–19 Proem
The proem consists of two parts: (i) lines 1–9 announce the Hymn’s sub-
ject-matter and elaborate on Hermes’ parentage by giving a brief ac-
count of Zeus and Maia’s affair; (ii) lines 10–19 move forward in time
(i.e. to Hermes’ birth), prepare the audience for what follows (a tale
about theft committed by a newborn child), and lead into the main nar-
rative.
Lines 1–9 215
Like other epic proems, the proem to h.Herm. does not reveal the
entire plot of the poem, but only the main events: we learn that Hermes
played the lyre at mid-day and stole his brother’s cattle at night on the
very day of his birth (17–19). But there is no mention of the fire-sticks
(108–14) or Hermes’ feast at the Alpheios river (119–29), the trial-
scene on Olympus (322–96), the two brothers’ reconciliation (507–10),
Hermes’ invention of the syrinx (511–12), or the various honours he ac-
quires throughout the poem. Thus, the proem to our Hymn announces
only a small portion of the action which amounts to lines 1–104; cf.
Bassett (1923), Keyßner (1932) 9–13, van Groningen (1958) 63–65, and
A. Lenz (1980).
For parallels between the proem of h.Herm. and Hes. Th. 53–61, see
p. 68.
1–9 Hermes’ parentage

Lines 1–9 are for the most part organized by means of ring-composi-
tion: having evoked the god’s name, parentage, and some important
cult-places in typical hymnic manner, the poet mentions (a) Hermes’
birth (3–4), followed by (b) Zeus and Maia’s affair (4–5); then (c) he ex-
plains why this was possible (the remoteness of Maia’s dwelling
allowed this secret affair: 5–6); the love affair is mentioned again (b’) at
6–9 (repeating some of the wording of 4); and finally lines 10ff. lead us
back to Hermes’ birth (a’). Thus the ring opens with a backward
movement in time and closes by returning to the starting point. The
emphasis on Zeus and Maia’s love-affair is related to what follows,
since Hermes’ clandestine conception at night mirrors his nocturnal
and thievish exploits later in the poem and makes his admittance to
Olympus problematic; cf. Hellanic. fr. 19b (quoted on p. 78) and Za-
netto (1996, 258).
Lines 57–58 (the opening of Hermes’ hymn to himself) begin in a dif-
ferent, though also traditional way ($φλ : K ( λ M
))) | ³« « % &! ' 9 ( φ)*(). The Hermes-
poet is aware of alternative hymnal openings which he employs in the
same poem; see 57–58n. and p. 10.
H.Herm. 1–9 appear also at h.Hom. 18.1–9; the minor differences
between the two poems will be pointed out in the notes on specific lines.
216 Commentary
1 E : the first word announces the poem’s subject; cf. Il. 1.1
(
), Od. 1.1 (Ν ), Theb. 1 (5A «), and the majority of the
Homeric Hymns. In several Hymns the praised divinity is mentioned
in the accusative at the beginning of the first verse, as the object of a
verb denoting singing ($, K, ); but in some in-
stances the name is introduced by means of $φ with the accusative
(h.Herm. 57 and h.Hom. 7, 19, 22, 33). The latter type of opening be-
came popular with the citharodic and dithyrambic poets who were
therefore also called $φ «; cf. Terp. 2 (= PMG 697) †$φ
σ« Ν/’ ' ("*) $ φ 7† (with Gostoli ad loc.), E. Tr.
511–13, Ar. Nu. 595 (with 595c, p. 132). Hsch., s.v. $φλ Ν
3944, Suda, s.v. $φ & 1700, 1701, Calame (2005, 22–24).
For the introductions to the Homeric Hymns, see Janko (1981, 10–11)
and Race (1982, 5–8).
Hermes’ name is attested already in Mycenaean; cf. DMic. s.v.
e-ma-a2 (= *E h«). Gérard-Rousseau (1968, 85–88) has contested
this interpretation: on the basis of two Hesychian glosses ( 5937 ' ·
φ [‘small off-shoots’] Ν/ (!. s« &«
' / )! and 5952 '
«· … λ « ρ« ( -
«, ‘a kind of pastry in the shape of a caduceus’) she suggested
reading Q Ν (“présents occasionnels supplémentaires”) at Tn
316.7 and forms of *' « (= “celui dont la baguette était l’ attribut
professionel”, i.e. messenger, herald, interpreter) at KN Dx 411 + X 511,
PY Un 219.8, Nn 1357; but Heubeck (1970, 812) objects to this interpre-
tation and rightly points out that e-ma-a2 cannot be read as Q (that
would require e-ma-ja), while -a2 cannot be anything else but -hă(i).
Our poet uses the contracted form of Hermes’ name. E « oc-
curs more frequently in Homer, who has the contracted form only at
Il. 20.72, Od. 8.334, 14.435, and 24.1. Hes. Op. 68 and [Hes.] fr. 66.4
have E («, a hyperionism (cf. West [1966, 80]), but he also has
E
« at fr. 59.15, 170, 217.2, and E at fr. 137.1, 150.31
(E ]); cf. Hirschberger (2004, 170) on [Hes.] fr. 1.21. E (« is
transmitted by at h.Hom. 19.28 and 36, but E « is unanimously
transmitted at 19.40, and subsequently in Alex.Aet. fr. 3.11, Call. Dian.
69, 143, Del. 272, A.R. 4.1137 (but E « at 2.1145, 4.121, E
at 3.588), Arat. 269; Nic. Alex. 561 etc.
HE}MEH (= E («) is found on a vase-inscription (SGDI III,
2 5783, Caere), and the group -EH- was wrongly considered a dit-
Line 1 217
tography for [e] by Kretschmer (1894, 59–60); cf. Wachter (2001,

205206). On the various forms of Hermes’ name in non-Attic sources
(E »«, E Λ«,E » [= a vocative], E ), see Wachter (2001,
265) §253 and p. 118 on a Corinthian graffito (Wachter’s COR Gr
26(1)).
For an overview of Hermes’ divine characteristics, see Eitrem
(1912b), Herter (1976), and Simon (1980, 295–316).

: K is found at the opening of h.Hom. 9, 14, 31. $ is
far more frequent, either as a finite form or as an infinitive depending
on Ν /! (h.Dem., h.Hom. 6, 10–13, 15–18, 20–23, 26–28, 30; also
Il. 1.1 and Theb.). occurs at h.Hom. 5, 19, 32, and 33; also Od.
1.1 and Il.Parv. Pace Cantilena (1982, 242), K is not equivalent to
; cf. Risch (1985).
In classical Greek 8« means ‘a song in praise of a god,’ as Plato,
Lg. 700b defines it (… _ ρ« % )
« C/λ μ« 1«, R
ξ 8 )). This meaning is possible here, but archaic
usage is more complicated. At h.Apol. 207–208 (« ’ Ν !’ K7!
« Κ *; | !’ λ (!9
! $ λ φ)*(),
K appears as a synonym of $, the least marked of the three
verbs. But Od. 8.429 refers to an epic song by $
« 8 $ 1
(where Bentley emended to $
« ρ), and [Hes.] fr. 357 ( :7))
* Ω λ 6O( « $λ | ), « 8«
W5« $7, | d" #A*)) / ! , χ [(@)
suggests that originally 8« must have been a constituent or a chara-
cteristic of $7 and that only at a later stage was 8« restricted to
songs in praise of gods; cf. Diehl (1940, 95, 105) and Vamvouri-Ruffy
(2004, 19–23). The archaic tradition preserves the original meaning,
while also showing signs of the new, specialized one. Thus Pindar uses
K of his poetry in praise of mortals, e.g. fr. 94b.10–12 (a parthe-
neion), ¹ P@ | K7! … | … , and
121.1–2 (an encomion), !)! K! … | … ))!«
$«; cf. already Hes. Th. 50–51, σ« ’ $ @ «
f | K!, h.Apol. 160–61, (!
$ ) ξ | 8 $!, 190–91 K!
W ’ Ν" ’ $ @ | )(!1«, and Bacch.
11.13–14, K! ξ P* ([μ] dU! . Anacr.
485 employs 8« in the sense of
«, while at A. Eu. 331 8«
designates the Furies’ song.
218 Commentary
Of the etymologies proposed (cf. Frisk, s.v.), the derivation from

Kφ is suggested by Bacch. 5.9–10 (Kφ« 8, of a song in
praise of a mortal; cf. 19.8 and Snyder [1981]) and may be paralleled by
the term W5) *« (< W), on which see Patzer (1952) and Ford
(1988), who defines W5) as “solo presentation, in public, of a
poetic text without musical accompaniment” (p. 303). From the point
of view of scientific etymology however, Vine (1999, 575–76), who gives
a list of all the etymologies proposed thus far, derives 8« from
*su on[H]- (‘sounding, intoning’) that yields also Latin sonare. On the
etymology of the term 8«, see further Beekes s.v.; on its semantics,
see J. M. Bremer (1981, 193–94), Furley (1993), idem (1995), Furley and
Bremer (2001, I 10–14), Pulleyn (1997, 43–46), and LfgrE, s.vv. K/
K and 8«.
The shorter Hymn to Hermes has (E
) $ instead of 8,
which precludes an invocation to the Muse. On a fifth century (ca.
470 BC) lekythos, a school-boy is depicted reciting from a scroll on
which E
$ (the incipit of h.Hom. 18?) is legible. This suggests
that the shorter Homeric Hymns may have functioned as school-texts;
see Beazley (1948) with plate XXXIV and idem (1950). On the shorter
Homeric Hymns, see Danielewicz (1974), Koller (1956).
M : the invocation to the Muse is a traditional element in
the opening of epic proems. It is also employed when the poet is about
to engage in a tour de force of memory, usually a catalogue (e.g. Il.
2.484–93, 11.218–20). As possessors of all knowledge and daughters of
Mnemosyne (Memory), their support is necessary for the poet who
is sometimes viewed as their mouthpiece; cf. Hesiod’s encounter with
the Muses on Mt. Helicon and his subesquent Dichterweihe at Hes. Th.
22–34; and Pötscher (1986) who points out that the song is the product
of the active collaboration of the Muse and the singer. The poet’s in-
vocation of the Muse is echoed in Hermes’ beginning his second song, a
theogony à la mode d’Hésiode, from Mnemosyne (429–30); see Minton
(1960), A. Lenz (1980, 27–37), and Collins (1999, 242–43).
μ« λ M « ¹ : Hermes’ parentage presented here is stan-
dard. The parentage of the praised deity is often found at the beginning
of a hymn, sometimes followed by a birth-narrative; cf. h.Hom. 15.1–3,
16.1–2, 18.1–9, 28.4–5, 31.2–4. In h.Herm., however, greater emphasis
is placed on the god’s origin than we might have expected; Hermes’ pa-
rentage is repeated in 3–4, and the proem dwells considerably on Maia
Lines 1–2 219
(3–7 and 19). The god’s genealogy helps establish his identity, and,
given the marginal role of Maia in mythology, the poet needs to create a
narrative about her first.
Homer has M« at Od. 14.435 (E 9
, M« s); cf. h.Hom.
29.7, Semon. 20.1, Hippon. 35, Simon. 555.2, E. Hel. 243 (lyr.), 1670,
El. 461–62, AP 6.346.1 (= FGrE 494, Anacr.). Hesiod uses M( at Th.
938 (another hyperionism; see 1n. on E
), but we find M at
[Hes.] fr. 169.3 and M« at fr. 217.2. The appellative is used
in the Odyssey only as a form of address (19.482, 500, 23.171), often ac-
companied by φ)( (e.g. 20.129, 23.11, 23.35, 59, 81). Hermes’ matro-
nymic M1« (a comic formation: the combination -(« + -1« is
found in nouns derived from animal names, e.g. ) 1«, $)-
1«; cf. Degani [2002, 189–91] and idem [2007, 100]) is found at Hip-
pon. 32.1 and Phot. Bibl. 144a.; the latter transmits also M(«.
Maia was a mountain-dwelling nymph, localized at Mt. Cyllene in
Arcadia. One of the Pleiades, the daughters of Atlas and Pleione, she
had no other role in mythology besides being Hermes’ mother and
nursing Arcas after Callisto was killed by Artemis; cf. [Apollod.] 3.8
(= III 101). Her name is a generic word for ‘nurse,’ formed by an expan-
sion of » (‘mother’); see Frisk s.v. and Golden (1995, 20–21). For its
formation, cf. »«, gen. » (‘father’) at Choerob. in Theod. 116 and
Et.Gud. s.v. « col. 450.56–451.2 (Sturz). Gundel (1928, 527–30)
maintains that Maia was Hermes’ mother without originally being one
of the Pleiades, and on the basis of Pi. N. 2.17 (= III 35 Drachmann)
that transmits [Hes.] frr. 169–70 he concludes that it was Hesiod who
first introduced this association. But this conclusion can be neither
confirmed nor disproved.
In h.Herm. 18 the explicit statement of Hermes’ parentage is
replaced by K))7 #A φ*(, which is redundant before
K))7(« .
2 K «: the god’s birth-place or cult-place(s) at the beginning of a

hymn is another traditional element; see Norden (1913, 168–69); on the
elements found in the opening of a rhapsodic hymn (evocationes), see
also Calame (2011, 337–41).
Besides being Hermes’ birth-place, Cyllene (who appears as a char-
acter in Sophocles’ satyr-play Ichneutai) is important also for what fol-
lows: it is also the scene of Hermes’ confrontation with Apollo.
220 Commentary
Hermes is associated with Cyllene already in Homer (Od. 24.1; but

note that Aristarchus athetized the second Nekyia); also h.Hom.
18.1–2, 19.31, Alc. 308.1, Hippon. 3, 32.1, 35, and perhaps also [Hes.]
fr. 64.18, 66.4. Hermes’ son Pan was also linked to Arcadia; cf. PMG
887.1 τ P #A « )»«. Pi. O. 6.77–80 mentions
sacrifices performed in honour of Hermes on Mt. Cyllene, and an
ithyphallic statue of the god was worshipped in Elian Cyllene according
to Paus. 6.26.5. Finally, on a black-figure amphora that illustrates
Athena’s birth from Zeus’s head in the presence of the other Olympians
(Berlin Antikensammlung F 1704, 570–60 BC, Etruria = LIMC, s.v.
Hermes 681, attributed to the Kyllenios painter), we read: HE}ME
EIMI Kκ[E[NIO (sic).
There were, however, also other traditions regarding Hermes’ birth-
place or the location where he spent part of his childhood: Mt. Kery-
keion in Tanagra was considered Hermes’ birth-place by some (cf. Paus.
9.20.3), while at 8.16.1 Pausanias reports that the Nymphs bathed
Hermes at Pheneos as soon as he was born. Elsewhere (8.36.10), he
mentions that Hermes was raised in Mt. Akakesion in Arcadia where
there was a statue of him, while Philostr. Im. 1.26 cites the peaks of
Olympus as the god’s birth-place; cf. Herter (1976, 236–37 n. 147). Such
variants are to be expected; cf. h.Hom. 1.1–9, where six different loca-
lities are mentioned as Dionysus’ birth-place.
Athanassakis (1989, 38) suggests that Hermes’ epithet K))7«
may not have been originally associated with Mt. Cyllene and proposes
that a now unattested word ))7( = ‘crooked staff’ (i.e. the shep-
herd’s crook) existed (hence ))7« = ‘god of the crooked staff, i.e.
shepherd god’). Even if this is true, the fact remains that K))7« was
understood by the ancient Greeks (certainly by our poet) as meaning
‘the god of/from Cyllene.’
: Homer uses at Il. 3.276 = 320, 7.202, 16.233–34,
24.308 of Zeus (5I( ) in the vocative, at the beginning of
prayers. is also frequently used as part of the formula π7 «
ξ « (e.g. Il. 2.79, 9.17, Od. 7.186, 8.11 etc.). Pace Zumbach 3
the application of to Hermes does not constitute a ‘profana-
tion’ of the term but is part of the poet’s strategy to elevate Hermes’
status by presenting him as the lord of Cyllene. This term is used of
deities other than Zeus already at Hes. Th. 54 (Mnemosyne), and sub-
sequently at Pi. fr. 95 (Pan), and S. fr. 371 (Poseidon).
Lines 2–3 221
#A« : )1()« (‘rich in herds’) may describe

either people (Il. 2.705, 14.490) or places (Il. 2.605* of Orchomenos).
Hesiod uses it with $φ*« in a maxim stating that men become richer
through their work (Op. 308).
Arcadia was considered a region rich in herds; cf. h.Hom. 19.30,
Orac.Delph. 1.5* P-W = Q26.5 Fontenrose, and Epigr.Gr. 744.3 (5th c.
BC); Pi. O. 6.100 and Theoc. 22.157 use Κ()« of Arcadia. The epi-
thet )7) points to Hermes’ function as the patron of herds. At
the end of the Hymn, the young god obtains the patronage over many
kinds of animals (including sheep, 570); cf. also his title ((« on
I.Prien. 216.9 (prescriptions for a sacrifice for the Nymphs, Hermes,
and Maeander; Mykale, earlier than 350 BC), and his cult-name
7)« in Coroneia (Paus. 9.34.3 – note though that Apollo also
had a similar title; cf. Tit. Cam. 135 #A[*]))[«] | #E()[],
3rd c. BC). At AP 6.344.3 (= HE 1968, Leon.Tarant.) Hermes is ad-
dressed as ()!!* (‘sheep-protecting’). Appropriately, P)7)(
bore EΚ « (‘generous’ LSJ) to Hermes according to Il. 16.179–86.
For Hermes’ ties to and cult in Arcadia, see Jost (1985, 440–56).
The Arcadians worshipped him as their ancestor; cf. A. fr. 273 E »
ξ * ¹ λ ) (= the Stymphalian lake, though
other interpretations have been proposed; see Radt ad loc.).
3 Ν!! $" % & ' : ‘the gods’ swift messenger.’ The god’s
attributes are yet another traditional element at hymnal openings; cf.
h.Dem. 1 ( 1 !κ ), h.Apol. 1 (' ), h.Aphr.1–2
()/ 1! … | K1 «), h.Hom. 6.1 (( / !!φ
)7). However, Hermes does not act as the divine messenger in the
Hymn; nor does he in the Iliad where it is Iris who plays this role. But
Hermes is the messenger of the gods in the Odyssey; cf. A.R. 3.587–88,
[Orph.] H. Proem. 22–23. Ν) $ may then be proleptic and
part of the poet’s play with the audience’s expectations (see 13–15n.).
Heralds were naturally expected to be swift; cf. Menestheus’ herald
>@(« at Il. 13.343 (3 /, >, AF )!!). On
the public roles of 7 « in the Greek polis, see Lewis (1996, 51–56),
and for their implements (caduceus, bells) and salary, see the contract
preserved on P.Oxy. LXXIII 4967 (Oxyrhynchus, 6th-7th c. AD).
Ν!! $" % (of Nike/Iris: Raubitschek; of Hermes: Ja-
coby) recurs in the same sedes at IG I3 784 I.2 (= Meiggs and Lewis
222 Commentary
[1999, 33–4, no. 18]; cf. Furley [1996, 15 n. 14]; Attica, 490 BC) [?
K)/*« ’ $] #A<φ>[«] $ | Ν[)
$] hλ #O[)1 *] 3/!. Pace Cantilena (1982, 243)
the recurrence of Ν) $ 1 in h.Hom. 18 does not
constitute evidence for its formularity, since h.Hom. 18 is not an inde-
pendent composition; the phrase ) $! (Il. 15.144,
Iris) is in the formulaic background, as Cantilena suggests (ibid.).
The meaning of the second element of & ' « was unclear
already in antiquity. Homer uses 1« at Il. 20.72 (coupled with
! «); 24.360, 440, 457, 679; he also has 1(« at Il. 20.34–35 and
Od. 8.322–23. For attempts to explain the derivation and meaning of
the epithet, see Latte (1954–55, 192–94) and Reece (1999). Bergk (1856,
384) was the first to link the word with three glosses in Hesychius, s.vv.
Κ( o 1785 (Arcadian), σ o 1793 (Cypriot), Κ« o 1794. Hesy-
chius explains Κ( as an imperative ( , ), and Bechtel GD I
393 assumed the existence of a verb Κ( (‘to hurry’), denominative
from σ«; cf. Bowra (1934, 68), who suggested that Κ(« and Κ«
had an unattested independent existence. But Latte, loc. cit., and Leu-
mann HW 123 correctly maintain that these two forms were invented
by the grammarians to explain 1« (cf. ) « < ) -
«; Ν (« < («; - < $7 ; _ < ( φ ). Ac-
cording to Bergk, 1« means ‘swift.’ At h.Dem. 407 E
« _)[]’
1« Ν)« % 1« (so Càssola, following M), % 1« is a gloss for
1« which suggests that the epithet was not completely under-
stood already at that time; but cf. Merkelbach (1959, 156), who restores
[σ ] Ν)« _)[’ 1« #A φ*(«], and Richardson ad
loc.
In antiquity 1« was linked to S(; cf. Goebel (1967,
II 95), who glosses ‘beneficial,’ the common interpretation given by
ancients, EM p. 374.20–26, and Corn. ND p. 21.4–6. The high concen-
tration of the adjective’s occurences in Il. 24, where Hermes aids Priam,
may suggest that the poet of the Iliad understood it in this sense, too. At
Phoron. fr. 5 it is explained as ‘cunning, wily’ (E ξ κ
1 %*!’ C*· | « « L« (1« ’
$ @« | ! )!19 (! ’ /(!!«, ‘for he
surpassed all the blessed gods and mortal men in wiles and cunning
thievishness’). Whether ‘swift’ or ‘beneficial,’ this characterization of
Hermes is proleptic: during the course of the poem he traverses great
Lines 3–4 223
distances swiftly, while his inventions (lyre, fire-sticks) are beneficial for
humans.
Finally, some sources link 1« with Hermes’ chthonic aspect
as well: cf. Ar. Ra. 1144–45 C
’ , $)) μ 1 |
E
/* ! (commenting on A. Cho. 1 E
/*,
)’ 1 (), IosPE I2 436 (Chersonesos 2nd c. AD)
[Ν) $ ]λ / 1 | … | Cμ« λ
))»« 3/ "*α | Κ )!# 1, ¹ #
$ (7, | )*, $μ @ λ !φ(«), and some
!« where again 1« is sometimes in close proximity to
/*« (cf. the defixio in Jordan [1985, 158, no. 18]; Attica 4th c. BC:
1« Ϊ« μ« μ E
μ {μ} /* λ μ
*) λ μ | / λ μ 1 λ C $)1!; further
Jordan (2000, 7 no. 2 [Athens, Kerameikos, after 388 BC] and 8 no. 9
[Kerameikos, earlier than 4th c. BC]). In these cases a folk-etymological
link with 3 = earth should be assumed (cf. Homeric 3 &, Eust. Il.
IV 362 [p. 1194] ν μ <3 > μ λ μ S, ν ² φ -
μ« μ K , ν /*« L« L« κ
3 , and Avagianou [1997]).
An overview of the epithets used of Hermes in poetry can be found
in Bruchmann (1893, 104–11).
χ M): the amplification of an epic poem’s or hymn’s sub-
ject-matter by means of a relative clause (relative predication) is yet
another traditional element; cf. Il. 1.1–2, Od. 1.1, Hes. Th. 1–2, Op. 1–2,
[Hes.] fr. 1.3, Il.Parv. fr. 1, Theb. fr. 1, the majority of the Homeric
Hymns, and Norden (1913, 168). The relative clause resumes the theme
of Hermes’ parentage from 1, and moves the narrative from the time-
lessness of 1–3 to the specific moment in which Hermes was born.
4 'φ & «: the formula occurs in the same sedes at

Od. 1.86 (Calypso), 12.132 (Phaethousa and Lampetie), h.Hom. 19.34
(Pan’s mother). )* « is employed in Homer of females in gen-
eral (e.g. Il. 6.380, the Trojan women; Od. 19.542, Greek women),
sometimes of servant-girls (e.g. Il. 11.624, 22.442); of Circe (Od. 10.136
= 11.8 = 12.150), and other divinities (Il. 18.48, a Nereid; Od. 5.390,
Eos; h.Apol. 194, the Charites; h.Hom. 31.6; 32.18, both Selene). It is
subsequently found with *« (E. IA 791, lyr.) and much later as an
attribute of ‘chthonian Zeus’ (PGM II 23.3).
224 Commentary
‘Well-tressed nymph’ is the first characterization of Maia that refers

to her outward appearance and signals her as the object of Zeus’s erotic
desire; it thus prepares us for the rest of the verse, where we learn of
their love-affair.
μ« & φ !): () φ)*(
is a common
phrase for love-making in epic that appears with many variations (e.g.
Il. 2.232, 3.445, 6.161, Od. 19.266; Hes. Th. 333, 375, 920 etc.); it often
connotes extra-marital sex, but this is not the case at Od. 19.265–66 and
Hes. Th. 923.
This reference to Zeus and Maia’s affair moves the narrative one
step further back into the past.
5 + : this epithet adds to Maia’s characterization: having described

her outward appearance (1φ( )* «), the poet moves on to
her character. The position of ( as a runover adjective followed by
strong pause makes it especially emphatic; cf. Hes. Op. 300–301 where
( used of Demeter appears also as an emphatic runover. On run-
over words in hexameter, cf. Bassett (1926, 116–48), M. Edwards (1966,
esp. 138–46), Clark (1997, 21–106), and (specifically on h.Herm.) van
Nortwick (1975, 68–72).
@« may be a feature of someone’s appearance, as in h.Dem.
214–15 (see Richardson ad loc.). Clay Politics 104 n. 30 points out that
( is not a common attribute of a nymph. In Hesiod it refers both
to the gods in general (Th. 44) and to specific female deities (Th. 16,
194, 950; Op. 194, 257). ( has here an active sense (i.e. ‘possessing
and exhibiting @«,’ hence ‘shy’; this is the primary meaning accor-
ding to Verdenius [1945, 48]), as the rest of the verse suggests: it is Maia
who avoids the company of the gods. At the same time, the poet may be
using this adjective humorously here: Maia is not ( in the way a
chaste wife is, given that she meets with Zeus in a cave at night while his
wife Hera is sleeping. At any rate, von Erffa’s (1937, 44) claim that in
post-Homeric poetry the adjective is always used in a colorless manner
and with passive sense is not justified.
% ξ "- '"’ Ρ : for a deity avoiding the com-
pany of the gods, cf. h.Dem. 355, where the reason is Demeter’s anger
for Persephone’s abduction.
Ρ « regularly refers to a group, sometimes a military one. The
gods as a group are normally called $ (Il. 8.2, h.Dem. 92),
Lines 4–6 225
φ) (Il. 15.54, 15.161=177, h.Dem. 36, 322, 433, 461),
²7 « (322, Il. 20.142, h.Dem. 484, h.Apol. 187), or «
(Hes. Th. 44).
6 Ν 0% : Nymphs often are said to dwell in caves (cf.

Calypso in Od. 5.57–74) and accordingly they were worshipped in caves;
see Amandry (1984, 403–11) and Larson (2001, 226–58). Schibli (1990,
22–23 n. 21) points out “the not infrequent depiction of caves in Greek
literature as places of sexual intercourse, usually involving divinity, and
as hiding- and nurturing-places for newly born gods.” Maia’s dwelling
has been identified with a cave in the west of Cyllene, in the region of
Phlambouritsa, which contained eleven ‘rooms’ and where glass, figu-
rines, and inscriptions containing the names of the dedicators have been
found; but this rests on inconclusive evidence; see Jost (1985, 35).
According to Giannakis (2000, esp. 195), Ν is derived from
$ + *trh2-on, the zero grade of *terh2- with a thematic vowel exten-
sion; this yielded *$- -, whence Ν was produced by haplo-
logy. Its meaning, accordingly, is “the place of the crossing to the oppo-
site side”, i.e. to the world of the dead (cf. Lat. tarentum). Caves are
important in the mythologies of many peoples, as they are “a sacred
place that constitutes a break in the homogeneity of space, an opening
that is a passage from one cosmic region to another, from heaven to
earth or, vice versa, from earth to the underworld” (Heyden [1986,
127]); cf. also Schibli (1990, 118–19 n. 34). Buxton (1994, 104–108) dis-
cusses caves as ‘symbolic operators’: they are simultaneously inside and
outside, above and below ground, and both like and unlike a house.
It is to be expected that a god like Hermes, whose role was to cross
boundaries and to lead the dead to the Underworld, was born in a cave.
In addition, the cave’s secludedness both underscores Maia’s @« and
accounts for the secrecy of her love-affair with Zeus.
: ) has intensifying force (= ‘doubly’); see LSJ, s.v.,
who cite )7 (« at A. Ag. 196; add ) « at A. Ag. 874 (cf.
Fraenkel ad loc.). )! is a rare word in archaic and classical lite-
rature (it recurs at h.Hom. 18.6, Archil. 36.1, X. Cyn. 5.9.2, Arist. HA
556a24 [though Balme prints )1! ]), but is more common in later
scientific prose (e.g. Thphr. HP 1.8.1, 4.1.1, Dsc. 3.107). The only com-
pounds with ! in Homer are )/*! (3/«) and ! «
(8)().
226 Commentary
Just like other nymphs’ caves, Maia’s cave is a locus amoenus sur-
rounded by abundant vegetation; see the more elaborate description at
228–32.
H.Hom. 18.6 has the more regular Ν ) ! )! ) ;
cf. P.Oxy. LXVIII 4667.2 gch )gc ) h, a banalization of
the rare )! .
7 'φ9 & ) %: see 4n.

! picks up :μ« φ)*( ! of 4. This iterative,
together with the (iterative) optative of the following line, implies a long
standing affair between Zeus and Maia instead of an amorous fling, in
which Zeus often indulged. This aims at legitimizing Hermes; see 58n.
The affair is also mentioned at Hes. Th. 938–39, but there it is one
among several other erotic encounters of Zeus. The Hermes poet, fur-
thermore, presents an inverted relationship: whereas Hesiod refers to
Maia as ¹ μ )/« !"»!, here Zeus frequents Maia’s cave; cf.
also 4, where Maia is the subject of a passive/deponent verb-form (-
!).
μ« $ !) -: (here) ‘in the dead of night’. The ancient gram-
marians often link $)*« with $), ‘to milk,’ though a deri-
vation from ) was also current (cf. Apoll.Soph. p. 28.23 Bekker).
Koller (1969) proposes on the basis of Il. 22.28 and 22.317 that origin-
ally the formula did not have temporal sense, but meant ‘milky way’.
Lazzeroni (1971, esp. 40–47), compares Vedic passages where night and
dawn are represented as cows, while light is likened to milk; he con-
cludes (p. 46) that “according to an image frequent in Vedic mythology
but forgotten or misunderstood in Greece, $)*« indicates the milk
as a symbol of the light during the night that is illuminated by the stars
or the twilight.” For more parallels (also from non-Indoeuropean
traditions), see Tsagalis (2003), who proposes on the basis of the formu-
la’s occurrences in the Iliad (in fire and lion similes) that its semantic as-
sociations are the interplay between light and darkness, solar imagery,
and imminent danger. Of these, only the emphasis on darkness is pres-
ent in our text (cf. 6 )! ), which agrees with the insistence on the
affair’s secrecy (at 8 and 9). Finally, Pârvulescu (1985) argues that ()
μ« $)) indicates the evening twilight and on p. 154–56 adduces
parallels from other Indo-European languages (OIr. imbúarach = ‘early
in the morning’, lit. ‘oxen-harnessing’; Sanskr. sam · -gava = ‘the time
Lines 6–9 227
when the grazing cows are collected for milking’ i.e. the second of five
divisions of the day, go-(vi)sarga = ‘day-break’, lit. ‘the time at which
the cows are let loose’, tisthad-gu = ‘after sunset’, lit. ‘when the cows
stand to be milked’), as well as modern expressions in Romanian (e.g. în
mulsul vitelor = ‘in the twilight’ lit. at [the time of] the milking of the
cattle) and Modern Greek dialects (e.g. $ *« = ‘the time of milking’
at Cos) for points in the day whose name derives from the activities per-
formed at that time.
On the basis of Hes. Op. 590 (& # $)() and AP 7.657.10
(= HE 2071, Leon. Tarant.; $) &*) Buttmann (1865, II
34–41) interpreted $)*« as $ 7 (‘peak’); see also Wahrmann
(1924). But as Gow and Page note on HE 2071, ‘milky’ is a more appro-
priate meaning in both instances.
8 2φ 3 !4«

« 05 : ‘while, so long as,’ pace Monro 281
§307 who expressly states that Rφ has final meaning; cf. van Leeuwen
(1894, 549) §323 (quamdiu) and Schwyzer II 651 (so lange). Rφ indi-
cates here extent of time instead of a point in time, and the optative is ite-
rative (rather than oblique, as Schwyzer, loc. cit. suggests). Thus the dur-
ation of the relationship between Zeus and Maia is again emphasized.
For the idea that sleep ‘holds’ someone, cf. S. Ph. 821–22, Ar. V. 9,
Theoc. 8.65, 11.22 (with ) 1«). Elsewhere 8« is ‘sweet’ because it
releases men from their cares (cf. Od. 23.342–43, Ρ ¹ ) L« 8« |
)!)κ« * !, )1 )7 ). Here Hera’s sleep is
‘sweet’ from Zeus’s viewpoint, as it enables him to leave Olympus and
visit Maia’s cave.
6 6H : ) @)« frequently refers to Hera, and
) @)« 6H ( is always found in this sedes; cf. Bruchmann (1893,
153). Less often the epithet is used of Helen (Il. 3.121), Andromache
(Il. 6.371), Nausicaa (Od. 6.101), Arete (Od. 7. 233), Selene (h.Hom.
32.17), Persephone (Hes. Th. 913), or maids (Od. 6.239). Novaro-Lefèvre
(2000, 47–52) discusses ) @)« in relation to divinities whose name
(or appellation) contains the root ) - and concludes that these deities
have in common the protection of those travelling by sea and their as-
sociation with death and initiatory rites; but this is not true of Hera.
9 "% $" « " 4« " '« ’ $ "6 «: for the secrecy
of Zeus and Maia’s affair and the attempt to hide it from Hera, cf.
228 Commentary
S. Ichn. 265–67, D ad Il. 24.24, 1–2. Zeus’s love-affairs are character-

ized by secrecy: cf. h.Hom. 1.6–7, 17.3–4; but cf. also Zeus’s catalogue of
affairs which he himself delivers to Hera at Il. 14.315–28.
Hermes’ clandestine conception is reflected in his nature, as was al-
ready suggested by the D ad Il. 24.24, 3–4: Ρ!« (sc. Hermes)
3!/ ), Ρ λ ZL« )5« κ 6H ( M) .
This verse that punctuates the first half of the proem is formulaic,
but should not be thought of as a mere polar expression whose compo-
nents amount to ‘everybody’; cf. 144n., 161n., 441n., 444–45n. While
the second hemistich ((1« ’ $ @«) may appear somewhat
unexpected since up to this point there has been no interest in humans,
this passing reference to men fits well with the marginal role humans
play in this poem.
$« 1« seems to have been picked up in a Homeric
cento preserved on P. Köln III 127 (2nd/3rd c. AD; 1225.1 M–P3).
10–19 Hermes’ birth

From the affair of Zeus and Maia we pass to Hermes’ birth and are told
that the young god would soon accomplish great deeds, which are enu-
merated in 17–18. Divine unions often, though not always, lead to off-
spring. (Note that even though Poseidon claims at Od. 11.249–50 that
C $φ@) Cλ $, this is not always true; cf. the :μ«
$( at Il. 14 that does not lead to offspring.)
The newborn god’s characteristics are presented through a cascade
of eight epithets and nouns (13–15), a device also found at h.Hom. 19.2,
36–37, 28.1–4, 29.7–8 (#A φ* :μ« λ M« ¹ξ | Ν)
/ !* ) and to an even greater degree
in the late h.Hom. 8 to Ares. (West [1970] considers h.Hom. 8 to be the
work of Proclus, but his view has been challenged by Gelzer [1994,
125–9] and van den Berg [2001, 6–7].) These nouns and epithets are not
the epikleseis regularly used of Hermes, and some of them are not
found anywhere else; cf. van Nortwick (1975, 83) and Greene (2005,
344) for the proleptic function of some of these epithets. This device is
found in the invocations of cultic hymns; cf. the hymn to Phales in Ar.
Ach. 263–65 or Philodam. Paean 1–3 ([: # Ν] :1 ", B /# |
E[Κ, T ]/|, B *() …), and Calame (2011, 338–41).
It is also met in descriptions of an anti-hero’s appearance, as e.g. at Il.
Lines 9, 10–19 229
2.216–9 (Thersites) and Vita Aesopi 1 (cf. Papademetriou [1997,

28–42]), or descriptions of animals (e.g. Opp. C. 2.176–83). Two ques-
tions arise: (i) how do the nouns and epithets of lines 13–15 relate to
each other? and (ii) why are they here?
(i) These characterizations are linked through an associative logic
(cf. Verdenius [1960] and Szepes [1980, 24–25]): Hermes is ‘of many
twists and turns’ ()1 «), which suggests that he is ‘cunning’
(¹)7(«); such a cunning character may also be a thief ()(!7 );
he may for example steal cows ()κ "). Just as he makes off
with cows, he may also be the cause of (deceptive) dreams (π7
S ); dreams appear at night, so Hermes may also be a ‘watcher at
night’ ( μ« S(7 ); and being a watcher at night, he may also be
watching ( 1) at gates ()(* «) to steal. However, not all of
these characterizations are elaborated in the story that follows (e.g.
π7 ’ S , )(* ); the poet plays with audience expec-
tations: he presents some possibilities for the development of the story,
of which he pursues only few; cf. Danielewicz (1974, 13). At the same
time, as Benveniste (1948, 39) points out, several of these characteriz-
ations are agent nouns that reflect the god’s permanent functions even
outside the context of the Hymn ()(!7 , )7 , S(7 , π7 ).
(ii) The first half of the proem is only an indirect presentation of
Hermes, as its greatest part is devoted to the god’s parentage. A more
positive or direct presentation is necessary here, and this is accom-
plished through this string of characterizations. The poet is composing
the proem twice, as it were: his first attempt focuses on the poem’s pre-
history (Zeus and Maia’s affair) and elevates Maia’s status, which is cru-
cial for Hermes’ legitimization; the second attempt focuses on Hermes
himself. This process of reiteration is highlighted by the fact that the
relative clause of 15ff. (χ« /’ 3)) …) could have been used with
some modification at 3ff. instead of the relative χ M … (the
parentage being already stated at 1 :μ« λ M« ¹*).
Lines 10–19, moreover, introduce two themes that will become
prominent toward the end of the poem, i.e. divination and song. The
latter is referred to at 17. The former is implied by the formula $))’ Ρ
7 … λ * (7), which is common in oracles, cf. Fontenrose (1978,
166–67) and p. 46 above. Lines 10–13 present Hermes’ birth with the
gravity of an oracular response that reveals the will of great Zeus. The
use of this oracular trope is humorous, since Zeus is presented as having
230 Commentary
decreed the creation of a little thief. The theme of prophecy reappears at

213–14 where Apollo learns of Hermes’ birth through an *«, in
Hermes’ speech, where he connects lyre-playing with divination (esp. at
482–88), and in Apollo’s final speech on divination (533–66).
10 $’ Ρ : from Zeus and Maia’s affair we move quickly forward
in time to Hermes’ birth. $)) marks a strong break and normally
indicates a transition ad nova et inexspectata (cf. Ebeling s.v.), although
in the context of a birth-hymn the mention of the god’s birth is not
an inexspectatum; see also LfgrE, s.v. IV 2. The clause introduced by
$))’ Ρ 7 often expresses a definite span of time (when X days/years
etc. passed, cf. Il. 1.493–94, 6.175–76, Od. 5.390–91, 7.261–62 etc.) and
is answered by λ *. Here the span of time is indicated by the
appended clause of 11.
! μ« « &8) : for other attestations of )
:*«, see Bruchmann (1893, 133–34). ) adds authority to Zeus’s
plan and prepares us for the “great deeds” to follow. For :μ« *«,
cf. 396 (= W(« 3 :μ« *« */): the “plan of
Zeus” is essentially in the process of completion until 396 (the resolu-
tion of Apollo’s and Hermes’ dispute and the latter’s admission into
Olympus).
Gemoll objected to the imperfect here, suggesting that the pluper-
fect would be more appropriate (cf. !7 in the following line).
However, when Zeus’s will or plan is mentioned, the imperfect is regu-
larly used; cf. Il. 1.5, Cypr. fr. 1.7. At any rate, the phrase is vague: we
are not told precisely what the plan of Zeus was.
Just as in the other major Homeric Hymns, where Zeus functions as
a mediator settling a dispute or averting a crisis in the divine world (cf.
Clay Politics 11–16), he plays an important role in the resolution of
Hermes and Apollo’s conflict too (cf. the trial-scene on Olympus at
322–96). But the emphasis on Zeus’s will in the proem is even more si-
gnificant in h.Herm. since in other versions of this story Zeus does not
seem to have such a central role; see L. H. Lenz (1975, 69–75).
11 ‘And (when) the tenth moon had been fixed for her in the sky,’ the
month being identified with the moon; cf. LSJ s.v. « I 2. With this
verse we move ahead in time, approaching Hermes’ birth. Whereas
the first half of the proem is temporally vague, lines 11 and 19 give more
Lines 10–12 231
precise temporal indications. It is noteworthy that even though

Hermes’ childhood is unnaturally precocious, Maia’s pregnancy lasts
the full term.
« «: the MSS vary between « (Ionic) and 7«, just as
at Il. 19.117; both would have been spelled ME in the pre-Eucleidean
alphabet, but the manuscripts’ variation does not necessarily point to
an Attic phase of the tradition; 7« may be a graphical error caused by
the influence of Attic (and later Greek) 7, a recent development by
analogy with - stems in -(, -(«; see Buck GD §112.3.
For the full term of pregnancy normally lasting ten lunar months,
cf. Hdt. 6.63.1, 6.69.5, Hp. Epid. 5.13 (V 212), E. Ion 1486–87, Ar. Th.
741–42 (with Austin and Olson ad loc.), Pl. R. 461d, Arist. GA 772b9
(seven to ten months), HA 583b25 ( (), 584a37, V. Ecl. 4.61
(with Clausen ad loc.), Gel. 3.16 (who cites ancient authorities on the
subject), and Aët.Dox. 5.21, 23. Hp. Oct. 13 (VII 458) mentions that
pregnancy may last ten or even eleven months. See further Neugebauer
(1963, 64–65) and Green on Ov. F. 1.33–34.
The ancient sources do not exhibit the idea of premature birth; all
foetuses regardless of the time that lapses between conception and birth
go through the same developmental phases, but the time spent in each
phase is compressed or speeded up in the case of children born early.
Seven and nine-month children were thought of as viable, but eight-
month children were not; see the discussion on Greek embryological
calendars in H. N. Parker (1999).
: ) - & : !( & is used of fixing heavenly bodies in
the sky; cf. Arat. 10, 230, 274, 351, 500, Nic. Th. 20. Q!( /¹!7 ( are
also found with «/7 (both ‘month’ and ‘moon’), cf. Anacr. 362.1–2
(the month Poseideon), and Thphr. fr. 6.27 (the moon).
12 ;« φ%« Ν!! : When this phrase indicates birth, the subject is

not the mother but some other figure (Hera, Eileithyia, or the gods).
Here, however, the situation is unclear. The subject could be Maia (‘she
brought [Hermes] to light, i.e. she gave birth to him’) or Zeus (‘he
brought [sc. the affair] to light,’ i.e. he revealed it).
$ 0! : $ !(« (not in Homer or Hesiod)
recurs in Tyrt. 12.29, Hp. Ep. 10 (IX 322, 324), 17 (IX 368), [Theoc.]
25.158, and Maiist. 6 (p. 69 CA). The adjective could be taken predi-
catively, ‘and the deeds became manifest’ (cf. LSJ, s.v. 1/ III); 3
232 Commentary
would then refer to Zeus and Maia’s love-affair. But it can also be taken
as attributive (‘notable deeds were brought to completion’); $ !(
3 would in that case designate Hermes’ deeds of 17–19; thus the
vagueness of 10 continues in this verse as well. $ !( 3 points to
Hermes’ ) 3 of 16; see also p. 15–17.
13 λ ! : usually the subject with () (‘gave birth

to’) is feminine as here, although a masculine subject is also found (e.g.
Il. 5.800, Hes. Th. 233).
) ' : recalls the Ν …)1 from Od.
1.1; the relative clause in 15 χ« /’ 3)) … corresponds to the Odys-
sean χ« ) ))…, and this similarity may explain why Kaibel
Epigr.Gr. 1032 (in app.crit.) considered the words from ¹)7( to
)(* an interpolation. Hermes is called )1 « also later
at 439. The adjective – a particularized one, according to Parry (1971,
154) – recurs at Od. 10.330 (of Odysseus), and appears again in Plato
(Hp.Mi 365b, commenting on Il. 9.308–14), where Odysseus, )1-
*« λ 57«, is contrasted with Achilles, $)(7« λ
4)«.
The meaning of the adjective was disputed in antiquity: ‘clever, cun-
ning’ or ‘much-travelled’ (i.e. )1) «); cf. Od. 1.1 (= I 7–9,
k1–l3 Pontani) and versutus in Liv.Andr. Od. fr. 1 (Warmington). Od.
10.330 is of no help in determining the exact meaning. Line 329 !λ
« !7!! $ 7)(« (‘proof against enchantment’) *« !
suggests that )1 « refers to a quality of mind; but 331–32
)1!! … | T (« $* 9
!L (η )9
( point to Odys-
seus’ travels. LSJ gloss Od. 1.1 ‘much-travelled,’ while they render the
same word in h.Herm. as ‘shifty, versatile, wily’ (on this last expla-
nation, cf. Maehler [1963, 24 n. 1]: “wer viele * (= Wege, Möglich-
keiten) zur Verfügung hat,” in light of )1φ(« at Od. 2.150,
22.376). Both senses are supported by h.Herm.: Hermes covers con-
siderable ground in the Hymn (cf. figs. 1a–b) and is the god of travelers;
cf. Majorel (2003, 55–57) for Hermes’ movement from the cave (i.e.
from beneath the ground) to earth (Arcadia, Pieria, Boeotia, Pylos, and
back to Arcadia), and finally to Olympus; and Hermes’ cult-epithets
*«, π*«, *«, «, on which see Osborne
(1985–86, 53) and Zografou (2010, 167–69). The connection between
()1 «) and ingenuity is present in C 7!« of 86
Lines 12–14 233
and )9 (« … 9 (! of 245. The adjective therefore functions also
as a reminder that metis (a characteristic of both Hermes and Odys-
seus) is inherently ambiguous: it is a quality to be admired, especially
when the weaker overcomes the stronger, but also a source of fear since
it involves deception. Cf. Clay (1983, 29–34) and Maronitis (1978,
81–85), who suggests that Hermes was the first to call Odysseus )-
1 « when he warned Circe of his arrival. Finally, just as in the case
of Odysseus, )1 « may point to Hermes’ verbal trickiness as
well; cf. Goldhill (1991, 3–4).
*¹ : cf. the metrically equivalent $ )7(« at Il.
2.205 etc. For the first element of the compound, cf. Cratin. 407
(¹))* « and ¹)*φ ), and for the second IG II2 12318.7 =
Peek (1955, 1996) ([]#; Athens 2nd/3rd c. AD). Hermes is
)1(«, and his words are ¹1) at 317ff., while at Hes. Op. 78 he
endows Pandora with 51 ’ ¹1)1« )*« λ )
_«. These considerations may account for the choice of ¹)7(
instead of $ )7(, elsewhere associated predominately with Cro-
nus and twice with Prometheus (Hes. Th. 546, Op. 48).
¹1)()« is shown to be etymologically and semantically linked to
words denoting ‘spellbinding’ (b «, b, ¹! ) by Weiss
(1998 50–56); cf. also Briand (1997, 142–44). For Hermes’ metis, see
Holmberg (1997, 9–12).
14 (): here ‘robber’, though it is frequently used of pirates (cf.

Od. 3.73 = 9.254, 17.425, h.Dem. 125, h.Apol. 454, Hdt. 6.17.6). Hermes
appears as a thief already at: (i) Il. 5.385–91, where it is said that he stole
Ares from the jar where Otos and Ephialtes kept him for thirteen
months; (ii) Il. 24.24, where the gods contemplate sending Hermes to
steal Hector’s corpse from the Greek camp; and (iii) Od. 19.394–97,
where he is said to have endowed Autolycus with )!1(; cf. Hes.
Op. 77–79 and [E.] Rh. 216–17 ($))# σ !# ² M« « ! λ
) | 5 E
«, Ρ« φ()( Ν<).
In the Hymn the motif of Hermes the thief is comically combined
with the theme of a god’s or hero’s precocious childhood; see 17–19n.
& < - : the phrase recurs modified in 265 and 377 and is
not found again until Coluth. 43 where it is used of a gadfly. )7 in
early Epic refers to a driver of horses/charioteer (Il. 4.145, 11.702,
23.369, h.Apol. 232, A. Pers. 32); but Il. 11.672 has "()!( (the cause
234 Commentary
of battle between the Pylos and Elis), while at AP 11.176.2 Lucillius

calls Hermes a "()«.
π! ’ > % : in Homer, π7 is a military leader (often in
the formula π7 « ξ «). Hermann xli–xlii considered this
phrase irrelevant to the infant Hermes, and Gemoll emended to
π7 φ on the grounds that the epithets in this section relate
to Hermes’ dexterity in stealing (Fingerfertigkeit) and are chosen on the
basis of Hermes’ actions in the Hymn; this leaves π7 ’ S
without a referent in the poem as the god does not appear as the leader
of dreams in the Hymn. (Gemoll followed in this Franke and Bau-
meister, but this assertion is not entirely accurate; see below, p. 228, on
some of the epithets’ proleptic nature that refers even outside the
Hymn’s temporal framework.) But Hermes does not function as the
leader of thieves either; he only threatens to assume this role at 175, and
Apollo acknowledges that he will be called the $ /μ« φ)( at 292,
which presumably implies that Hermes will exercise this function
beyond the Hymn’s temporal frame. Nor is he truly a )(* « in the
Hymn as he is called in the next verse which Gemoll retained.
The title π7 S may be due to Hermes’ association with
night and sleep. The Phaeacians poured libations to Hermes before
going to bed (Od. 7.136–38, Athen. 16b). Elsewhere, Hermes brings
sleep; cf. Il. 24.343–44 = Od. 24.3–4. Later sources, too, present him as
the sender of dreams: A.R. 4.1732–33, Apollod. FGrH 244 F 129 with
Jacoby’s commentary (Hermes was the god of the bedchamber, and
bed-feet were sometimes carved in the shape of Hermes’ face), and Hld.
3.5.1 (prayer to Hermes so that the night be C* «, ‘a bringer of
auspicious dreams’); cf. the inscription from the Villa Albani (ILS 3200
= Courtney [1995, no. 143] with notes) in which Hermes refers to him-
self as dator… somniorum; see also Eitrem (1912b, 789).
Dreams were thought to be messengers of the gods, and π7 ’
S may reflect this idea; cf. Il. 2.26 (where however the dream
is sent by Zeus, not Hermes) and Acusil. FGrH 2 F 9, quoted on
p. 96–97. Given that dreams were thought of as a means of communi-
cation between gods and mortals and since Hermes was the gods’ mess-
enger, π7 S seems justified; cf. PGM I 5.410–14, where
Hermes is addressed as @!(«…« R «, π -
L« [ λ] L« / (!L« , and Zanetto (1996,
258). In addition, the souls of the dead were sometimes compared to
Lines 14–15 235
dreams (Od. 11.207, 222), and Sleep was thought of as the twin brother
of Death (cf. Il. 16.682). Thus π7 ’ S may hint at Hermes’
role as the psychopomp, presented more explicitly at 572. Finally some
scholiasts related Hermes’ cult-epithet K))7« to his ability to in-
duce sleep; cf. HQ Od. 24.1 K))7«α ² ) 3/ «
π« (lit. ‘he who holds the reins of the eye-lids’). )« ξ ¹ Kμ
L« Sφ)L« 1(«; V Od. 24.1 ν ² 8 ( *«, ³«
1) 3/ « π«.
15 μ« >%: this could mean ‘someone who watches during

the night’ (taking *« as a genitive of time) or ‘someone who
watches for, i.e. awaits, night’ ( *« being an objective genitive); both
interpetations find support in the text: at 65 Hermes darts out of his
cave ! 7, while he awaits the night to commit his cattle-theft
and lies in bed during the day (as a π * «).
*S(7 can be viewed as a synonym of S7 , ‘spy’ (cf. Od.
14.261; and h.Herm. 73, where Hermes is called 1! «); it is a
nomen agentis derived from S, formed from the pluperfect S@-
, perceived as an imperfect of an - contract verb; cf.
< @ (already in Homer, e.g. Il. 8.223, 12.337, 22.34; Od. 9.47,
17.161) or ( < (* (first in X. Cyr. 1.4.20); cf. Sütterlin
(1891, I 87).
μ« S(
has been restored at IG XIV 2557 = Epigr.Gr.
1032 Kaibel (Augusta Treverorum, date unknown; quoted on p. 105). If
this restoration is correct, this would be a reminiscence of the Hymn.
Note, finally, that Hermes is called μ« R
« )) at
Alex. 93.2.
* : a ‘watcher at the gate,’ the second element of the
compound being 1 (‘watch closely’). This word could refer to
Hermes as the guardian of doors, hinges, and entrances; cf. his titles
)«, 1)«, 1)«, «, ! φ«, and ! φ1«,
Farnell, Cults V 19 and 66 n. 20–25, and Zografou (2010, 154–55,
165–67). At 384 Hermes swears by Olympus’ 1 to prove his
innocence. This association may be implied at Il. 24.445–46 (! # φ#
8 3/ « #A φ*(« | »!, Νφ # c< 1)«
λ $! S/
«); cf. Wrede (1985, 34).
)(* « may also mean ‘thief’, judging by ²* «: cf. Plb.
13.8.2 (where it appears between ¹ !1)« and φ«), and D.Chr.
236 Commentary
4.95; it is glossed as )@5, 7«, « 3« in Hsch.

s.v. 92 (cf. also Hsch s.v. ² 91). Lines 146–47 suggest a way
to reconcile the two meanings: there, Hermes enters the cave through a
chink of the door possibly also transforming himself into mist. In a
sense the house’s entrance is not violated, but at the same time Hermes
acts as a thief, as he enters stealthily; a god’s power may have both a
positive and a negative effect.
H. Usener (1965, IV 226–27) associated )(* « with the Gate
to the Underworld, traditionally located at Pylos (e.g. Il. 5.397, Pi. O.
9.29–35); so already Welcker (1857, I 340).
16 $φ : this form of the future infinitive of $φ does not

occur elsewhere in archaic epic; nor does $φ-, even in contexts
where it would be metrically admissible (e.g. Il. 1.87, 11.62, 17.244), and
although syncopated forms are common in epic. Cf. further Νφ
at Pi. P. 4.62, fr. 211, and $φ at A. Cho. 815 (lyr.).
3 0!: this phrase elsewhere describes works of craft per-
formed or taught by a god: cf. Od. 20.72 (Athena), [Hes.] Sc. 297, 313
(Hephaestus), and it may point here to Hermes’ handicraft in creating
the lyre, the sandals, the fire-sticks, and the pan-pipes. At any rate,
) 3 picks up $ !( 3 from 12 and sets the tone for what
the audience should expect in the poem.
17–19 These lines were bracketed by Ilgen, as a grammatico primum

in memoriae subsidium in margine notati, who was followed by most edi-
tors until Gemoll defended them on the ground that χ« in 20 pre-
supposes that something has already been said about the wondrous
deeds. The brief summary before the narration of the god’s actions is
paralleled by h.Apol. 131–32, which also foreshadows the Hymn’s main
themes (lyre-playing, archery, prophecy). In both Hymns these lines
also illustrate the motif of the precocious divine child, found also at
Od. 11.311–20, E. IT 1249–83; see Bielohlawek (1930, 203–204), Rader-
macher (1924, 232–35), Fries (1938), Gering (1927, I 46) for parallels
from Nordic legend, Thompson, Motif-Index A 527.1 (‘culture hero
precocious’), Herter (1961, 148), and Ambühl (2005) for the motif of
the divine child/hero in Callimachus and its relation to previous litera-
ture. But the poet of h.Herm. emphasizes the divine child’s rapidity of
action and inventiveness, while h.Apol. underscores the god’s strength
Lines 15–17 237
and rapid bodily growth. The motif of Hermes’ precocity appears again
in S. Ichn. 277–82, but there we meet the motif of rapid corporeal
growth, just as in h.Apol.
These verses, introduced in (explanatory) asyndeton, offer a pre-
view of some of Hermes’ ) 3 : the fabrication of the lyre and the
cattle-theft, his two most important actions in the poem. The cattle-
theft precipitates the conflict with Apollo that will open Hermes’ way
to Olympus, although not in the triumphant manner in which other
gods enter Olympus (cf. the Muses in the Theogony or Apollo in the
opening scene of h.Apol.), while the lyre will be the instrument of re-
conciliation between the brothers and Hermes’ way of acquiring divine
honours through exchange. Thus most of the Hymn’s action is, in a way,
the result of the deeds presented in 17–19. However the order of events
is different from most other versions of the story: whereas normally the
cattle-theft precedes the creation of the lyre (indeed, the cows’ intestines
and hides are used in the construction of the lyre), our poet makes the
cattle-theft follow the lyre’s fabrication. This results in a chiastic ar-
rangement for the entire composition; see p. 125.
These lines, finally, place the Hymn’s action in a definite time-frame.
In fact, the Hymn poet seems to be particularly interested in the chro-
nology of the story; cf. 68–70, 97–102, 140–43, 184–85, 326, and de
Jong and Nünlist (2007, 56–57).
For Callimachus’ imitation of 17–19, see p. 117–18.
17 ) - «: first attested at Hes. Op. 548.

!! 6«: the form occurs here for the first time, but is not guaran-
teed; @« could have been used (cf. 214, 271, 331), and @«
may point to Attic influence in the transmission.
)
% ?: this phrase draws attention to extraordinary events;
cf. h.Apol. 441*, where Apollo appears as a star in broad daylight, and
A.R. 4.1286* (a solar eclipse).
&!"@ : many editors felt that & implies the pre-
sence of an audience ( = ‘amidst’) and compared with the only other
occurrence of & at h.Apol. 201; consequently they found
fault with the absence of an audience in Hermes’ first musical perform-
ance. Gemoll therefore adopted Bergk’s σ &. Radermacher,
on the other hand, took !) - with & to ease the
construction, comparing Hes. Th. 7 $ ) E) / L«
238 Commentary
7!, Th. 71 Ρ # C ) "!)1, A.R. 1.1060 1")

<, but these are not good parallels. It is best to take -
& absolutely and !) - as a dative of ‘time when.’ Fur-
thermore, even though Apollo’s lyre-playing in h.Apol. has an audience,
this is not explicitly mentioned but is supplied from the context. Like-
wise, it may be assumed that Maia’s maids are the audience of Hermes’
first musical performance in h.Herm. (cf. 60) although this, too, is not
stated explicitly in the poem. & in h.Herm. may be an adap-
tation of h.Apol. 201; this might account for both its syntax and the
hiatus after -.
18 < « B : i.e. the events narrated at 68–104.

The Hymn poet uses both "« and "*«, and in some cases
(cf. 22, 102, 116, 262, 340) the metrical context would admit either
form. The same is true of Homer proper ("*«: Il. 12.137, 20.495,
24.782 Od. 11.289 [where some codd. transmit "«], 12.375, 19.276;
"«: Il. 1.154, Od. 19.198) and Hesiod ("*«: Op. 452; "«: Th. 291).
Porph. Antr. 17 refers to Hermes as the " )*« *«; see
M. J. Edwards (1993).
19 9 9 , 9
M): this verse punctu-
ates the first narrative section of the Hymn: the proem begins and ends
with a reference to Maia.
For 9
9 (, cf. Hes. Op. 785 (π @( Q () and 811
( !( # «). This numeration of the day belongs to what Sa-
muel (1962, 423) calls the ‘decadal’ system: in this, the month is divided
into three ten-day periods; the period to which a day belongs is indi-
cated through the addition of the adjective @(, !( (here
() for the first decade, !!( for the second (thus « !!(
at Hes. Op. 794 is the fourteenth day), and φ« (or $*«
vel sim.) for the third.1 For ancient calendars and the various ways
of counting days, see Mommsen (1883, esp. 80–116), Bischoff (1919,
1571–72), Samuel (1972), and West on Hes. Op. 765–828 (esp.
p. 349–50). A month Hermaios existed in Boeotia, Aetolia, Phthiotis,
1 But note ( / was the twentieth day in Attica (e.g. II2 378.4
[= SEG 32: 95] Attica 321/20 BC, II2 1673.78 [= SEG 34: 122], Eleusis 333/2 BC); Pritchett
and Neugebauer (1947, 32).
Lines 17–19 239
Thessaly, Argos, and Epidaurus; and the month Hermaion is attested at

Halikarnassus.
Hermes was thus born on the ( (μ« ¹!; cf. Plu.
738f E 9
ξ )! $ π « $ , ))λ ξ λ
(μ« ¹! ! μ μ ¹! !. The fourth,
along with the first and seventh, were thought to be sacred days; cf. Hes.
Op. 770 with West’s note. The fourth day in particular was associated
with Hermes, Aphrodite, and Heracles; cf. Thphr. Char. 16.10, LB
Ar.Pl. 116a/b/c, and Hes. Op. 800b who reports that the same day was
associated with both Hermes and Aphrodite and therefore was μ«
!! (. Heracles, too, was said to have been born on the
fourth day (cf. Philoch. FGrH 328 F 85), hence the phrase
« was proverbially used for people who toiled for others; it was
also on this day that Heracles joined the company of the immortals.
Dinners on the fourth day of the month by the society of the !
are mentioned at Alex. 260 and Men. Kolax fr. 1 (Körte = 292 Kock).
Hermes was linked with the number four also in a different way: cf.
Paus.Gr. 71, E
« T φ)« (Herter [1976, 208] explains -
φ)« and φ)« as referring to Hermes as the god of
crossroads); AP 6.334.3 (= HE 1968, Leon.Tarant.) )@/, i.e.
with four angles, square (from the shape of the herms); Corn. ND p. 23,
12 Lang « ) !/7; Apollod. FGrH 244 F 129; and Far-
nell, Cults V 67 n. 31.
Zanetto (1996, 259) speaks of the poet’s “flash of surreal humour”
in suggesting that the god’s good luck is related to his birth on the
fourth day (i.e. Hermes’ day), though one would think that it is because
Hermes was born on the fourth that the day is auspicious. A similarly
humorous moment occurs at 30 when Hermes encounters a hermaion, a
lucky find (the tortoise).
‘august’ occurs already in Mycenaean (cf. DMic. s.v. po-ti-
ni-ja). In this sedes it often qualifies Hera (e.g. Il. 8.471, 13.826, 14.159,
Od. 4.513); less frequently it is found with other deities (K (,
T(1«), 7( , or 1φ(. The poet may again aim at increasing
Maia’s status, an otherwise unimportant nymph, though LSS 19.85
[SEG 21: 527] prescribes that Maia receive a sacrifice of a sheep worthy
twelve drachmas. Consequently, Hermes’ prestige is augmented. At
any rate, * M closes a ring that started with line 1 (M«
¹*).
240 Commentary
20–67 Hermes and the tortoise

The pars epica (or epicae laudes in Calame’s terminology) that contains
the mythological narrative begins; see Janko (1981, 13–14). Shortly
after he is born, Hermes leaves his cradle in search of Apollo’s cattle. He
chances upon a tortoise in front of his cave, and addresses it in riddling
terms that foreshadow its future role as ‘the companion of the feast.’ He
then kills the animal and constructs the first lyre out of its shell. There-
after, he tries his new toy (Ν ), improvising a hymn to himself.
Finally, he hides the lyre in his cradle and leaves for Pieria.
The transition from the proem to the main narrative is handled in
different ways in the major Homeric Hymns. H.Apol. begins with a
scene on Olympus (all the gods except Zeus and Leto are awe-struck
at the god’s arrival), and the transition is achieved through a ques-
tion, as in Il. 1.11, where the Muse’s and poet’s voice blend. H.Dem.
launches straight into the narrative after a proem of just three lines.
H.Aphr. begins with a typical proem (1–6), followed by a bridging
section (7–33) that describes the limits of Aphrodite’s power (she
cannot subdue Athena, Hestia, and Artemis); this leads into the
main topic, how the goddess was conquered by her own power of
love. In h.Herm., the presentation of some of the narrative’s central
themes in the proem results in a smoother transition, without the
need for a lengthy section between the introduction and the main
narrative, as in Aphr. Lines 20 ff. pick up the motif of the precocious
divine child.
Lines 20–22, furthermore, present a set of verbal and thematic cor-
respondences with 63–65: $U<« (22) ~ Θ) (65); &7 "*« (22) ~
& (64); ¹ ) λ ) ) preceded by participle (21 and
63). Thus the poet narrates the invention of the lyre (essentially a di-
gression from Hermes’ original plan) in a way that allows him to return
to the interrupted narrative.
It may be thought that Hermes’ journey resembles a Jenseitsfahrt
since: (i) he abducts the cows, which in myth often symbolize the souls
of the dead; cf. Croon (1952, 67–68 with n. 3) and Davies (1988,
279–80 with n. 17); (ii) these cows are abducted from a meadow of as-
phodel, which is associated with the realm of the dead; cf. Od. 11.539,
573, 24.13, and 221n.; (iii) he drives them to a cave at Pylos (lit.
‘Gate’), traditionally considered the entrance to the Underworld; cf.
Lines 20–67 241
Fontenrose (1959, 327–30) and Davies (2006, 193–96). Interestingly, at

h.Apol. 411–13 the cattle of the Sun are located at Tainaron, thought
to be an entrance to the Underworld; cf. Str. 8.5.1 (p. 363 C.). Con-
versely, Hermes’ encounter with the tortoise may be viewed as a Vora-
benteuer (‘preliminary adventure’); for the term, see Meuli (1921,
102–104) and Davies (1988, 282–83). When a hero travels on a quest,
he often must face a demon-like figure to obtain information or the
means to accomplish his task. By killing the tortoise, Hermes is able to
obtain the shell he needs to fabricate the lyre, which will be instrumen-
tal in his reconciliation with Apollo. However, the symbolism of the
cows as souls of dead should not be pressed too far, as Hermes event-
ually kills two of the animals. Given that Hermes steals Apollo’s cattle
to acquire 7, h.Herm. does not support such an eschatological
reading; see also Rose (1954). Besides, Hermes’ role as the leader of
souls is dealt with briefly and indirectly at the end of the poem (cf.
572–73).
The core of Hermes’ story as presented in the Hymn focuses on the
creation of the lyre and the abduction of Apollo’s cows. We may com-
pare the Hymn’s events to the so-called Mnesiepes inscription whose
narrative derives from folktale tradition and records Archilochus’ initi-
ation into poetry. The two accounts have a number of points in com-
mon: in both stories the character is young; Archilochus has to take a
cow to the market for sale, while Hermes steals fifty of his brother’s
cows; the events occur at night (cf.
« *«, !)7(«
)1!(« in the Mnesiepes inscription, E1 II.16); both characters
meet someone whom they mock (the Muses in the Mnesiepes inscrip-
tion, where this abuse is termed ! @; the Old Man at Onchestos in
h.Herm.); both stories involve the exchange of cattle/a cow for a lyre.
For the address to the Old Man as a ! , see 90–93n. On the Mne-
siepes inscription, see Kontoleon (1952), Peek (1959), Kambylis (1963),
and D. Clay (2004, esp. 14–16, 104–18); on its relation to h.Herm., see
Vergados (2011b, 88–90).
20–29 Hermes leaves his cave and encounters the tortoise

20 χ« : ‘It is he who, immediately after he leapt from his mother’s
womb …’; cf. Denniston GP 295, 307. Janko (1981, 9) notes that “the
central ‘mythic’ portion is always introduced by ² [here: Ρ«] and this ² is
242 Commentary
always the first one to occur in the Hymn,” citing Hamilton [1974, 113],
who refers to an unpublished study by Th. Weischadle.
μ« $’ $" % " !% : for ( ) ) @! in the con-
text of birth, cf. h.Apol. 119, Call. Dian. 25 (both divine children), Hp.
Ep. 17 (IX 374) ( ( ) @ )1 < «; a mortal
child). Il. 19.110 has simply !9 ( !!λ *« (of a mortal
child). At Hes. Th. 281 Chrysaor and Pegasos leap forth (< ) from
Medusa’s decapitated neck. Cf. finally P.Derv. col. xiii 4 χ«
3 «.
!) is rarely used of a god’s body (cf. Il. 8.452, Hes. Th. 492, Call.
Dian. 25, Q.S. 12.201); the combination $ … is unique.
Maia may have been imagined to have given birth in the same way
as Leto did, i.e. resting on her knees; cf. h.Apol. 117–18, Paus. 8.48.7,
West on Th. 460, and Kuntner (1985, 86–100).
21 ¹) - & λ )
%: this occurs once more at 63, where it is also pre-
ceded by a verb + participle (cf. 63 ( φ ¹ ) λ ) )
).
It is formed by analogy with ¹ ) λ φ ) (Il. 17.464) or ¹ ) λ
1 )) (Il. 18.504). For Hermes lying in the cradle, cf. 254, 358 (both
with !).
A ) () in Suda ) 360 and Hsch. ) 520, 521; but contrast
Hsch. ) 1016 ) («, 1017 ) , 1018 ) !φ) is a winnowing
fan used to separate the grain from the chaff; it was also employed in
cult, with fruit and/or a phallus placed inside. At Call. Jov. 47–48 it is
said that Zeus was placed in a golden ) , and the Scholiast ad loc.
records that infants were placed in a ) in the belief that they would
thus acquire wealth in their adult life; see Harrison (1903, 294–96, 315,
318), Kroll (1926), and Frazer (1921, II 5 n. 4), who adduces parallels
from other cultures. Dionysus was especially associated with the )
and bore the epiklesis ) («.
On Hermes and the ) , cf. S. Ichn. 275 where Hermes is said
to enjoy ) φ7, van Hoorn (1909, 17–21), and LIMC, s.v.
Hermes 241 and 242 a/b. (figs. 2a, 3, 7).
22 $’ Ρ !’: Ρ () picks up an already mentioned subject as often in

epic; see Denniston, GP 121–22.
$’ Ρ !’ $ C8«: cf. Od. 9.288* where Polyphemus lays his hands
on Odysseus’ companions.
Lines 20–23 243
For the motif of the infant Hermes leaving his cradle cf. Thompson,
Motif-Index T 585.7 (precocious hero leaves cradle).
Like Apollo (cf. h.Apol. 131–32), Hermes seems to have a firm plan
of action as soon as he is born, though he does not verbalize it as
quickly as his elder (half-)brother.
@ <« #A% «: for "*«, see 18n.
The poet does not explain at this point why Hermes was after Apol-
lo’s cows; this lack of explanation may imply the audience’s familiarity
with Hermes’ cattle-theft story. Later we are told that Hermes was hun-
gry for meat (64, 130), an explanation which creates problems of its
own, since Hermes as a god should not (and does not) partake of the
cows he slaughters, nor should he be craving meat. The cattle-theft is
part of Hermes’ plan to acquire 7, which cattle-raids often confer in
traditional societies; see Walcot (1979, 343–46) and Haft (1996), who
compares h.Herm. with cattle-raiding in modern Crete.
23 :μ D< % : Hermes’ adventures begin, and he appropri-

ately “crosses the threshold.” C*« signals the beginning of the
indoors (or the outdoors as here) and of private property. Tartarus has
a bronzen C*« (Il. 8.15), as does Alcinous’ palace (Od. 7.83, 7.89);
cf. the formula λ /) "ξ« that designates Zeus’s palace in
Il. 1.426, 14.173, 21.438, 21.505. An C*« made of stone is more
frequently found in poetry: Il. 9.404, Od. 8.80, (Apollo’s temple at
Delphi), Od. 16.41 (Eumaios’ hut), Od. 17.30, 20.258, 23.88 (Odysseus’
palace). Less frequently we meet a wooden C*« (Od. 17.339 )«,
21.43 1«); this is found in the interior of the building and sets
the vestibule off from the main chamber; see Rougier-Blanc (2005,
143–46).
Cμ K " is used here and at 380 of entering the cave.
Elsewhere the phrase (with variants) is employed when someone enters
a temple or palace: cf. Od. 7.135 )« Kξ Cμ "7! @-
« F!, and Od. 8.80 P 9 (, Ρ’ K "( ) C*.
DBφ « Ν : K5 φ7«/K5( φ7« regularly describes
@ (Il. 5.213, 19.333; Od. 4.15, 4.575, 7.85 etc.). K5( φ«
Ν was probably coined by analogy with Il. 9.582 C "-
"Ω« K5( φ« ); hence the lengthening at K5( φ«.
Hermes is said to dwell in a cave, as did his son Pan, who was wor-
shipped along with the nymphs in caves. But there is something peculiar
244 Commentary
about Hermes’ cave: the poet refers to it through phrases normally

employed in the description of a house or palace, and throughout the
poem it is envisioned in different – and sometimes conflicting – terms.
Radermacher’s observation (on 26) that “the cave exists for him [sc. the
poet] purely as a creation of his imagination, which undergoes fabulous
changes according to the needs of the moment” is correct. In fact, the
poet prepares us here for a theme that will be elaborated later: While
Hermes’ dwelling sometimes seems to be a regular cave, at 61 its de-
scription reminds of a palace or temple, at 247 it has three Ν, and
at 252 it is a « *« (again a reference to a temple; cf. n. ad loc.
and 233n.) that has several /. But Hermes refers to the cave in con-
temptuous terms at 172 ( *, elsewhere reserved for &*φ« or
T «; cf. n. ad loc.): this attitude reflects his desire to acquire a
position on Olympus among the other gods instead of being a marginal
deity of dubious status dwelling in an Arcadian cave; see Càssola 171
and Vergados (2011a).
24 0 " 5 D6 : /)« occurs first here in hexameter poetry; it

recurs in Sapph. 118 (Ν κ /) † )† | φ!! †ξ
†) and Alc. 359. Paus. 8.17.5 transmits an aetiological story,
probably an echo of the Hymn: 3 (sc. on Mt. Chelydorea at Cyllene)
K Ω /)@( E
« μ ( λ $’ C
« )
7!! )1 . At 2.19.7 he mentions a representation of Hermes
seizing a tortoise in order to construct a lyre at the temple of Lycian
Apollo, while at 8.30.6 he reports that a tortoise made of marble was
still preserved at the site where the temple of Hermes Akakesios had
stood. For depictions of Hermes with the tortoise-lyre, see LIMC, s.v.
Hermes nos. 310–20.
The tortoise Hermes encounters is a testudo graeca, testudo margi-
nata or testudo hermanni; see Maas and Snyder (1989, 95), Dumoulin
(1992, 90 n. 11 and 102–105), and West (1992, 56 n. 34); an image may
be found in Alderton (1988, 160). On the representations of Hermes
with tortoises, see Dumoulin (1994, 39–55).
& 2< : R)"« refers to the entire set of divine
honours Hermes will acquire by the end of the poem. Gods are never
said to possess R)"« and accordingly they are never called R)"; they
confer R)"« to mortals (Od. 6.188, 18.19, Hes.Th. 420, Op. 281 etc.,
exc. [Hes.] Sc. 204 – an interpolation); but cf. A. Supp. 526 (R)" Z).
Lines 23–25 245
“R)"« usually has a strong material connotation” (Richardson ad

h.Dem. 480), and appropriately the poet uses R)"« of Hermes at 379
and 461, since the young god covets Apollo’s possessions. R)"« (and
R)"«) may be a subtle way for the poet to present Hermes’ ‘identity
crisis’ (see 63n. and 116–41n.; Clay Politics 122), i.e. his insecurity
about whether he is truly a god or not. This ‘crisis’ is resolved at 131–33.
The tortoise is a true Q , which Pl. Lg. 932a (= Paus.Gr. s.v.
69) explains as an $ !* ( « (‘an unexpected gain’) …
$μ « ²« $ / ψ« ¹ ²* -
!!, 1« ξ ) E 9
$φ !, ³« R λ 1) 'λ
(cf. Preller [1860, I 403 n. 3], Eitrem [1912a]; for the term
Q , cf. Pl. Phd. 107c, Smp. 176c, 217a, Dem. 38.6, Men. Dysc. 226,
Plb. 3.104.6, 13.4.3, D.S. 3.47.8). Hermes appears thus to be both the
provider and the receiver of the gain and the accompanying R)"«, a
dual role similar to that Hermes plays in the ‘sacrifice’ scene (cf.
116–41n.). The poet creates here a mythological precedent from the
god’s life that serves as an explanation for the sense of Q current
in his time. Furthermore, this Q , as an omen that grants Hermes
R)"«, bodes well for his initial undertaking, i.e to steal Apollo’s cattle.
Notice the sound-play in 7! (24) and 7() (25).
25 E« 6 5 ’ $ : ‘Hermes, as you

know, was the first to make the tortoise into a singer.’ This verse reflects
the idea that the poetic or musical performance is made possible
through the intervention of a god; cf. Barmeyer (1968, 81).
Ruhnken (see Mahne [1832, 19]) considered 25 an interpolation,
and was followed in this by most editors, except for Schneidewin who
thought 111 to be an interpolation instead. Baumeister went on to sug-
gest that 25 was modelled on Boeo 2.2 (#)7 ’ χ« «
d" φ« | « ’ $ / ’ $; it
is unclear why he calls it an oraculum), cited by Paus. 10.5.8 (on Boeo,
see Knaack [1897, 633–34]). Agar (1921, 13) took the verse as a mar-
ginal summary of the story to follow, while the similarity to 111
prompted Càssola to suggest that both verses derive from another
‘Hymn to Hermes’ or a different version of the present Hymn; but there
is no support for either of these claims.
For Hermes transforming a voiceless creature into a singer, cf. 38, S.
Ichn. 299–300 (quoted on p. 83), Nic. Al. 559–62 (quoted on p. 87). This
246 Commentary
is the first reference to the tortoise in anthropomorphic terms, which

will be taken up in greater detail in Hermes’ speech to Apollo where the
chelys-lyre is presented as a hetaira (cf. 463–95n.). For other sources on
Hermes as the inventor of the lyre, see the introduction, section 5.1; add
Bion, fr. 10.8 Gow, Nonn. D. 41.373, and [Orph.] A. 383.
Line 25 is the first explicit aetiological statement in the Hymn and
shares much of the wording of 111 that refers to Hermes’ invention of
the fire-sticks. Within the larger narrative construction the partial repe-
tition of 25 and 111 is functional: these lines frame the two principal
events announced in 17–19, the construction of the lyre and the cattle-
theft. Both 25 and 111 can be taken parenthetically (Shelley seems to
have understood 25 so), and is a rhetorical device by which the poet
attempts to engage his audience’s attention, presuming that the audi-
ence should be familiar with Hermes’ inventions (‘Hermes, as you
know …’). Since Hermes is about to address the tortoise in riddling
terms, 25 suggests the answer to this riddle, as it were, and thus guides
the audience. In fact, in what follows we have the earliest attestation of a
riddle (dum vixi tacui: mortua dulce cano) that appears in different
forms: cf. S. Ichn. 299–30, AP 14.30 ( μ 3/
,
)
/)@(· | ( # Νφ φ L« «), Pac. Ant. fr.
3, Manil. 5.324–25, Symphosius Aenigmata XX (Ohl), and the Old-
English Riddle 28 quoted in Shook (1958). This riddle was adapted to
instruments of the lute and violine family. See the extensive discussion in
Borthwick (1970).
Hermes is portrayed in visual arts as playing the lyre or auloi mainly
in mid-6th and the first half of the 5th c. BC, and auloi (not lyres) appear
in visual representations of cult scenes in his honour; see the evidence
assembled in Zschätzsch (2002, 99–107).
6 may be designed to contest other claims regarding the
lyre’s « K 7«; another tradition, reflected at Tim. 791.221–23,
considered Orpheus as the inventor of the lyre ( « )*!«
#O |φL« </)> !).
" is properly used of the carpenter’s work (Il. 5.62), but
is also employed metaphorically already in Homer (Il. 10.19 with

«); for the construction with two accusatives, cf. Pl. Ti. 33a-b. Here
7 is multivalent: it refers both to manual work (the actual fab-
rication of the lyre, 41–51; cf. D.S. 9.19.1, Opp. C. 3.282–83), to a work
of
« (the transformation of a speechless creature into a singer, 25)
25–27 247
and to the poet’s work (i.e. Hermes’ hymn to himself, 54–62; cf.
= ‘poet’ at Pi. P. 3.113, N. 3.4 and « C) 8 at Ar.
Eq. 530; cf. * »! % ) 7 at Ar. Th. 986).
$ « (and cognates) can designate any living thing which sings:
a tortoise (Sapph. 58.12 φ) )1 /)1), a nightingale
(Hes. Op. 208, h.Hom. 19.17–18, E. Hel. 1109, Theoc. 12.7 [$(]),
swans (Call. Del. 252 $* (); further, a rooster (Theoc.
18.56), the frog (AP 6.43.1 [Plato] = FGrE 650 K μ $*) or even
the Sphinx (S. OT 36, E. Ph. 1507). In epic the $*« is one of the
( (Od. 17.383–85), grouped with the seer, the healer, and the
carpenter, and his art derives from Apollo and the Muses (Hes. Th.
94–5). By making the tortoise into an $*«, Hermes already appro-
priates Apollo’s role as the god of song early in the Hymn, before even
stealing his cattle. Pace Pucci (1977, 62) $* is not adjectival here.
26 F G ¹ $ < : it is the tortoise that meets Hermes rather

than vice versa. An Athenian audience would appreciate this detail:
since herms were located at the entrance to private houses, anyone
coming from outside encountered Hermes as they entered; cf. Thuc.
6.27.1, AP 6.143 (= FGrE 518–21); Cairns (1983b, 29), Wrede (1985,
33–4, 37–8), Osborne (1985–86), Rückert (1998, 180–84), and Furley
(1996, 13–28).
&’ :9 "'9: cf. Solon 4.27, Pi. N. 1.19, Hdt. 6.69, Pl. Smp.
212c, Lys. 1.17, 12.6, IG IV2, 1.110.27/28 (Κ) 1 ), and
further E. Hel. 438 μ« C)! '!( Ω« 1)«. At Od. 18.239*,
23.49* ’ C)9 (! 1 9(! refers to the courtyard-doors of Odys-
seus’ palace, while at Pi. N. 1.19 it designates the courtyard-doors of
Chromius’ palace; here this clausula is another instance of the cave’s
changing presentation; cf. 23n. and 227–54n.
27 < : "*! ! is primarily used of cattle and secondarily

of deer or birds (cf. Il. 5.162, 16.691, 17.62, 20.223, Od. 4.338=17.129,
11.108, 12.128, 12.355, 14.104, 21.49; h.Apol. 412). The poet thus
adapts here (and at 559, where "*! ! refers to the Bee-maidens)
epic usage to accommodate the tortoise. Furthermore, "*! ! is
sometimes found in Homer in similes, through which the imminent
death of a victim is compared to peacefully grazing animals that are at-
tacked by a predator, and something of this sort may be felt here as well;
248 Commentary
cf. Il. 5.161–62, 15.690–91, 17.61–62; Od. 4.333–40, 17.124–31 and

Katz-Anhalt (1997, 18–20).
&" : see p. 50. Cantilena (1982, 244) considers
() ( a “functional variant” of Il. 14.347 (() ().
28 λ < : ‘walking wantonly.’ The primary meaning

of !) and its cognates seems to be sexually suggestive gait; cf. Anacr.
411b (:1! !) B!! «) and E. Cyc. 40 (!), of
the satyrs during a « of Dionysus). Clem.Al. Paed. 3.11.69 who
cites Anacr. 458 remarks: ¹ ξ 7!« λ 15« λ
/)λ )! )«· μ 4"
« λ μ
7!« λ μ “!) "”, —« φ(! #A ,
9
' , —« φ (‘the effeminate gestures and the
soft and wanton manners ought to be entirely thwarted; for the delicate
and, as Anacreon says, !) gait is entirely appropriate to prostitutes,
as I think’). A similar idea must have been present in Semon. 18 ( λ
!) " b« ³« † («), given that it is cited by the lexica
as part of the explanation of !)1«· 4" *« λ -
*«· μ !), μ φ μ λ . («
(sic) "« ). (EM 270.45–47, Phot. 435, [Zonar.] p. 539, the
last also citing Ar. fr. 635 ² ³« !*φ !)1
‘dancing affectedly like a ranter’); cf. further Arist. V. 1169c who ex-
plains that !) ξ ) λ μ / (‘frivolous’) λ μ -
( *« (‘loose’) and Hsch. ! 270, who glosses !1) as 1
(LSJ render it as ‘effeminacy’). Finally, a pejorative connotation is also
suggested by the compound !) » at Ar. V. 1173.
For the formation, Chantraine DELG s.v. compares !) with
other adjectives in -)« (e.g. /)«), which often have negative mean-
ing, while Frisk suggests that it may have been formed through associ-
ation (Kreuzung) with φ)«; similarly, Beekes s.v.
By describing the gait of the tortoise, a slow-moving reptile, with a
word that evokes the gait of ladies of low repute, the poet does not only
point to the tortoise’s function as the companion of the feast, under-
stood as both a lyre and a hetaira, who will make the symposiasts dance
(cf. Shelmerdine ad loc.), or to the description of the chelys in erotic
terms at 475–88. Above all, the poet is making one of his first jokes in the
Hymn: the new-born Hermes meets a μ« ' ( (31) who with her
gait catches his attention so that he wishes to take her into his house (34)!
Lines 27–29, 30–38 249
μ« ’ & ' « ¹«: Reece (1997) rightly suggests that word-

play is intended between 1«, S7! (30), and S7!« (35),
(cf. 392 with n., an etymological play between and π-
1); cf. LfgrE, s.v. S7!«, and Richardson (2010, 34–35n.), who
considers that S7!, S&, and S7!« in 35 are part of a
wordplay.
29 $"«: ‘when he spotted it.’ $ sometimes involves the no-

tion of discovering (e.g. Il. 12.391, 14.334), or at least a certain intensity,
as lexicographers and commentators point out (Phot. s.v. $ 480,
μ ! λ ’ !« ² ») and it is sometimes accompa-
nied by &; cf. 414, Il. 10.11–12, Frisk s.v., Prévot (1935,
246–47), Bulloch on Call. Lav. Pall. 102, and Prier (1989, 27–29). Here
$ points to both discovery and surprise (cf. 32 * *;), pace
LfgrE s.v. $ B I 4 who understand $ in h.Herm. (29, 414) as
having a weakened sense (= a synonym of @).
&!: for the laughter of other divine (or semi-divine) infants,
cf. h.Hom. 19.37, A. fr. 47a.786, S. fr. 171.3, Nonn. D. 9. 36, D.P. 949,
and Halliwell (2008, 101 n. 3). Laughter punctuates key moments of
the Hymn: the discovery of the tortoise, Apollo and Zeus’s reaction to
Hermes’ defence speeches (281, 396), Apollo’s reaction to the lyre’s
music (420).
λ : " 0 is not used elsewhere as a speech introduc-
tion in extant archaic epic and may be the poet’s innovation (cf. van
Nortwick [1975, 50]), but it consists of formulaic components (see for-
mulaic apparatus).
For talking infants, cf. h.Apol. 129–31, Call. Dian. 5–28, Del.
162–95 (unborn!), Thompson, Motif-Index T 615.1 (precocious
speech).
30–38 Hermes’ address to the tortoise

Hermes’ address to the tortoise reveals his excitement at his discovery.
The animal is personified and Hermes foresees its function at banquets
(cf. 31 μ« ' ( and 38, which also implies her role as a hetaera).
Radermacher ad loc. already remarked on the abruptness of Hermes’
speech: it consists of short, choppy phrases, sometimes without con-
nectives, which may represent the poet’s attempt to reproduce child-like
250 Commentary
speech; cf. van Nortwick (1975, 93–95) for a similar effect in Hermes’
speeches to Apollo, and above, p. 23–25.
As soon as Hermes meets the tortoise, he realizes that it can help
him obtain the desired honours (cf. Rφ)*« 3!!9 () and acts as if
he were to strike a deal with the speechless animal: it will help him
execute his plan to acquire divine honours, and in exchange Hermes
will transform it into an instrument that will have a distinguished place
at banquets. Although the tortoise has a function while alive, being a
charm against sorcery, through its death and Hermes’ intervention it
will obtain a more prominent position in human activities and charm
men through its music. Hermes is thus able to see the potential profit
from the transformation of the tortoise and tries to convince the ani-
mal to submit to its death by proposing an agreement, as it were, so
that he may acquire something that was proverbially impossible to ob-
tain (cf. /)@(« R! · λ C r *«,
—! Cξ /)@( ( S! Macar. 6.88 and
Apostol. 13.99d). Thus, Hermes’ killing of the tortoise and fabricating
the lyre are far from the amorality of a child that, unlike an adult male
citizen, could not distinguish right from wrong, as Golden (2003, 14)
thinks.
30 '< ? !’ > , : > @%: ‘Here’s already a

very profitable omen for me; I do not scorn it.’ Hermes directs these
words to himself, and they amount to μ * (Hdt. 9.91).
!1") is neuter; cf. LSJ. s.v. !1") I 2, although the masculine
!1")« is also found in the sense ‘omen’; cf. LSJ s.v. II and Müri
(1976, 24–26 and 36–37). Both Hermes and Apollo (at 213) receive
an omen as soon as they set out to search for the cattle. But while
Hermes knows how to interpret it, ironically Apollo, the god of proph-
ecy, fails.
This is one of the earliest occurrences of !1")«/ along with
Archil. 218 (cited by Pi. O. 12.10 who notes !"*)« ξ )
L« ν φ7« ν $7!«) and Thgn. 1150, where it means
‘pact’ or ‘agreement.’ For the term’s history and meaning, see Müri, op.
cit. and Gauthier (1972, 62–104). Originally, !1") was an item
(a tablet, an astragalos etc.) that was broken into halves and used to re-
confirm xenia-bonds: the two halves were put together (= !"))),
and thus the xenoi were recognized; cf. Eub. 70 and Page on E. Med.
Lines 30–31 251
613. In the 5th and 4th centuries !1") and !")7 became tech-
nical terms for treaties between cities.
!")) can also mean ‘to meet’ (e.g. Od. 6.54, 10.105), and
according to Greek superstition, the person or animal one met leaving
one’s house was a portent (cf. Ar. Ra. 196 with Dover’s note, Ec. 792,
Thphr. Char. 16.3, Luc. Pseudol. 17); cf. 26 $"*)(!. Such a
!1") was thought to be sent by Hermes himself: Hermes appears
thus as both the sender and the recipient of this omen; cf. Heiden (2010,
416). Something similar occurs in the Alpheios scene, where Hermes is
both the organizer of, the attendant to, as well as one of the recipients
of the «, and indeed this seems to be a Leitmotiv of the poem:
Hermes is involved in situations in which he discovers, as it were, his
traditional functions and thus obtains his by enacting them.
Gauthier, op. cit. 71 n. 26 (cf. Steiner [1994, 42]), suggests that
!1") could mean here a présage or ‘sign’ (the tortoise is the first
thing Hermes sees as he leaves his abode), but goes on to suggest that
the tortoise is itself an object that has to be joined with something else
(ox-hide and strings) to form a single object (lyre). This seems less con-
vincing: unlike the lyre that was created from joining together disparate
materials, a !1") is a token of recognition that was part of an
original whole.
For ?, see LSJ s.v. I 2 and F. W. Thomas (1895, 90), who points
out that it refers to “some new or critical event just occurring.”
> : first here; it subsequently recurs at A. Eu. 924, S. Ant.
995, Aj. 665, Tr. 1014.
: > @%: i.e. ‘I do not make light of the omen, I accept it.’
S& recurs at Hes. Op. 258 (! )« S&), while S-
!* ‘(not) to be made light of’ was conjectured by Clarke at h.Aphr.
254; cf. Faulkner ad loc.
31 5), φκ &, 5 ' μ« J: the tortoise is per-
sonified and addressed in terms reminiscent of a hymnal invocation: be-
ginning with / , Hermes continues with an enumeration of the tor-
toise’s powers and characteristics, and concludes by promising to
honour the animal (cf. 35, 38). / is regularly found at the endings of
the Homeric Hymns and of embedded hymns; cf. Hes. Th. 104, 963, Pi. P.
2.67, N. 3.76, I. 1.32. But there are instances of hymns beginning with
/ , e.g. Alcaeus 308 (Hymn to Hermes) and the ‘Palaikastro Hymn’,
252 Commentary
v. 2 (with Furley and Bremer ad loc.). Cf. Shelmerdine (1984, 203) and
Hübner (1986, 160–61), who speaks of the tortoise’s ‘aretalogy’ here.
φκ &: *« does not occur in the Iliad or the Odyssey,
where we find the (sometimes) metrically equivalent *«; the
poet of h.Herm. and Hesiod use both adjectives. At Hes. Th. 245, 251,
357, and [Hes.] fr. 169.1 *!! refers to nymphs (Nereids, an
Okeanid, an Atlantid), while Anacr. 373.2–3 describes as *!! a
different stringed instrument, the
«.
5 ': cf. Pi. fr. 156.1 (/ 1«, an attribute of Silenus) and
Il. 24.261 / (‘dance’). Càssola, following Matthiae, accents
/ . The proparoxytone would mean ‘beaten or played during
the dance’ and would refer to the tortoise as an instrument. Besides ar-
chaic usage that argues against / (playing an instrument is not
expressed by 1, but $1 , 1, )7!!, and or
5)) when a plectrum is not used), the active (paroxytone) offers a
richer sense: ‘marking the beat for the dance.’ The tortoise is thus envi-
sioned both as a lyre marking the rhythm through its music and as a
dancing girl or hetaira (who walks !), as we found out at 28) mark-
ing the rhythm by her movements or the clapping of her hands.
Moreover, it is best not to punctuate after / 1 (cf. Rader-
macher and West ad loc.), and to take instead / 1 μ« ' (
as one sense unit. The tortoise as lyre and hetaira is in keeping with
Hermes’ description of the instrument at 475–88. At the same time,
addressing the tortoise / 1 is comical, as Radermacher ad loc.
observes.
μ« J: for the idea, cf. Od. 8.99 φ* *« ’, p λ
!7 *« ! )9 ( (the phorminx is ‘wedded to the sumptuous
feast’), 17.270–71 φ* < | … p Ν λ λ (! ' (,
Epigr.Gr. 1025.8: [(] [] ’ C ' ( )(« [ / ]
(2nd/3rd c. AD), Plu. 712f $))’ D ) λ ’
6O( 3 « / *« (
« *« ! (read λ «
’ 6O( 3 / *«?). The phrase is addressed to the tortoise but
can equally be applied to a female participant in a banquet.
32 $ φ ): Homer has $!!«

φ79 ( at Od.
23.233.
φ/ φ! is sometimes used of a god’s appear-
ance (cf. Alc. 34.3–4 and S. Ant. 1149, OT 163) and of portents, omens,
Lines 31, 32–33 253
or dreams (= ‘appear,’ ‘foreshow’; cf. Hdt. 7.37.2, X. Cyr. 4.5.15, Paean

Delph., 20/21, Plu. Rom. 9.5, Mar. 8.8, LSJ s.v. φ II). It is thus
in keeping with both the hymnal mode of this passage and the humour
of Hermes’ words here: the tortoise is presented as a beautiful girl
whose appearance delights Hermes and whom he wants to take home.
32–33 " , μ Ν"; | + 2ó &, 5«

2 @6 : ‘whence [did] you [come] here, beautiful plaything? You
are a variegated shell, mountain-dwelling tortoise.’
There are two interrelated issues that need to be addressed here: the
punctuation of these lines and the form of the main verb in 33 (the
transmitted !! or Q!!, an emendation).
Many editors have followed Hermann in printing * *
)μ Ν , | *) R! , !!, /)« R ! &@!; (so
Franke, Abel, Baumeister; Ilgen printed * *, )μ Ν ,
).). This punctuation takes * * with !! and suggests
the rendering ‘whence did you come here?’ The parallels for this
expression, however, have ¹ (156–57, Il. 14.298, 309, Od. 1.409)
and not ρ.
In general, more than one way of punctuating is admissible here;
this is a case in which the singer’s intonation would have clarified
matters. Thus, in addition to the punctuation printed in the lemma, one
could adopt also Gemoll’s, who printed * * )μ Ν ; |
*) R! * !!, )., i.e. ‘whence did this beautiful plaything
come? etc.’; so too Richardson (2010) who renders ‘from where (is) …?’.
One could conceivably propose even * *; )μ Ν , |
*) R! * !!, ). ‘whence did this [come]? A beautiful play-
thing, [i.e.] a patterned shell you are etc.’ Note also Radermacher’s
punctuation of these lines that brings out Hermes’ childish surprise:
* * )μ Ν , | *) R! ; !!λ /)« R !
&@!; (are you the mountain-dwelling tortoise?). At any rate, we
need to keep in mind the intended effect of Hermes’ speech in this sec-
tion: the “coupling together of the apposition of Ν , R! ,
/)«,” produced by many editors’ punctuation, is not “unparalleled to
the point of unintelligibility” as Tyrrell maintained, but an attempt to
reproduce Hermes’ child-like speech; cf. 30–38n., 261–77n., and p. 23–25.
Several editors printed Q!! (a pluperfect form of Q) in 33, a
suggestion of Matthiae’s (though he did not incorporate in the text)
254 Commentary
that was proposed again later by Tyrrell (1894); but note the express dis-
agreement of Agar (1921, 13). In this case, too, the punctuation varies:
Càssola, adopting the punctuation introduced by Agar (1921), prints
* *, )μ Ν ; | *) R! Q!!, ). i.e. ‘whence
do you come, beautiful plaything? You have on (indossi) a variegated
shell …’, while West (2003a) has * * )μ Ν , *)
R! Q!!, ).; ‘where did you get this fine plaything, this blot-
chy shell that you wear, you tortoise living in the mountains?’ Finally,
AS/AHS, while accepting Q!! which they thought could have been
easily corrupted by 3!!9 ( of 34, did not use any punctuation until the
end of 33 (where they placed a question-mark), and thus it is impossible
to understand how they construed. Though Q!! is Homeric (cf. Il.
3.57 and Chantraine, GH I 297 §137), it is unnecessary to emend the
MSS reading here since it yields satisfactory sense (‘you are a patterned
shell’), and if any emendation needs to be made, it ought to be to a per-
fect rather than to a pluperfect form.
In any case, Hermes immediately directs his attention to the part of
the tortoise that will be beneficial to him, its shell.
" (sc. ¹ «). h.Herm. is the only archaic epic poem
where this collocation appears; it recurs with a different syntactical
function and meaning at 155* and 269*. Here it indicates Hermes’ sur-
prise at the sudden appearance of the tortoise (the first Q ); cf.
$ 7!« at 29.
Ν" = tortoise-shell (cf. 40); at 52 Ν means what is made
from the tortoise’s shell, the lyre (cf. the use of /)« in the sense ‘tor-
toise’ and ‘lyre’). Hermes is particularly interested in the animal’s cara-
pace, since he plans to construct a lyre. The word is particularly apt: in a
story whose hero is an infant, one expects to hear of a child’s toy (for
this sense of Ν , cf. Od. 18.323, A.R. 3.132 [alluded to in Phil-
ostr.Jun. Im. 8 ($1 «) = p. 402–403 Kayser], and Q.S. 7.339). At
the same time, Ν points to the tortoise’s future use as a musical
instrument, as $1 can be employed in the sense of playing an in-
strument (cf. 485n.). In later Greek, Ν can also mean a pet; cf.
Galen, UP 1.22 (III 80), Ael. NA 3.42, 4.2, 6.29 (= Phylarchus FGrH
81F61a), Alciphr. 2.19.3 etc.; on tortoises as pets, see Daremberg-Sag-
lio s.v. Bestiae mansuetae I col. 695.
μ Ν" appears also at h.Dem. 16 (at a different sedes)
where it designates the narcissus flower and expresses Persephone’s de-
Lines 32–35 255
light, and at A.R. 3.132 where Aphrodite promises Eros the ))ξ«
Ν of another divine child, Zeus; see Kyriakou (1995, 30–32) and
above, p. 115.
33 + 2 : ‘variegated shell,’ i.e. with many spots; cf.

Marc.Sid. 16 )1! (‘much-spotted’) /). *)« is used
of speckled animals at Call. Dian. 91 (cf. )*« at Opp. Hal.
1.125, Opp. C. 2.177, Nonn. D. 4.358 etc.), while at S. Tr. 94 (lyr.) night
is called *) on account of its stars.
R! occurs here for the first time, and subsequently at Hp.
Steril. 245 (VIII 458), Theoc. 9.25 (a trumpet-shell), and perhaps at S.
Ichn. 310 (P c ; S! Hunt, S! Wila-
mowitz, Diggle).
34 $# ;% # +« -: though this is a mountain-dwelling animal,

Hermes will take it into his home (cf. Gemoll and Richardson ad
loc.). « creates the impression that Hermes’ dwelling is an
actual house (cf. 26n.), and not a cave in a rural area, indeed on Mt.
Cyllene!
09 : only here in archaic Epic (Od. 19.254 has 3!9(); it recurs at
Alc. 396 (where some MSS read 3!(), Call. Dian. 39 (different sedes),
AP 14.78.5*, 14.93.10*.
35 :’ $ %: ‘and I will not neglect / slight you.’ $7! is
preferable to Matthiae’s $7! (‘dishonor greatly’; cf. Il. 13.113),
adopted by West who renders ‘undervalue’. The verb occurs here for
the first time, and its sense is picked up at Call. (Aet.) fr. 59.8 (L ’
$g7!!h | gp λ $h!« 3!φ gL« #Eφ1 9 (h).
$» became a technical term in classical Greek (‘mortgage’;
Dem. 41.7, 41.19; Hsch. 6718 $) »· K(!; LSJ, s.v.
$ III), and $( appears on Athenian horoi; see Fine
(1951).
4 6 > «: @! is adverbial (cf. Od.
10.462, 20.60, 22.491, h.Dem. 457). The tortoise has to fulfill its part of
the deal first, which is cruely ironic, since the animal will not receive any
of the benefits deriving from this ‘agreement’ as it will be dead. For
> «, see 28n.
256 Commentary
36 ; < ρ , &λ <<μ μ "'φ: = Hes. Op. 365. A

marginal note in some MSS of the Hymn accuses Hesiod of plagiarism,
on the assumption that the Hymn, being “Homeric,” must pre-date
Hesiod. Baumeister and Brown (1947, 80) thought that our poet may
be parodying Hesiod, which is not impossible. Ford (2010, 149) re-
marks on Pindar’s adaptation of Hesiodic material from the Works and
Days, and h.Herm. 36 shows that this occurred in hexameter poetry as
well.
If 36 is indeed a reference to Hesiod and not merely the reflection
of common proverbial wisdom, it is perhaps more apposite to view
this as an allusion whereby the original context is activated (and is in-
deed necessary for the interpretation of the alluding passage) rather
than a parodistic reference aiming only at humour: in both texts the
concept of reciprocity is emphasized; cf. esp. Hes. Op. 354–55 and
Hermes’ promise to the tortoise not to forget its benefits to him; see
further Allan (2002, 101) and p. 16, 31 above. Of course, in h.Herm. we
are not dealing with genuine reciprocity, but with a cruel and ironic
teasing.
This verse also showcases Hermes’ ability to manipulate language.
In Hesiod the proverb functions as advice to keep one’s goods at home
(cf. West ad loc.), and in fact it will be to Hermes’ profit to keep the tor-
toise at his home. In other contexts it could conceivably function as
an instruction to women to stay at home to avoid slander. But the god’s
remark is ironic, since the tortoise is always at home; cf. Aesop Fab. 106
(= p. 362–63 Perry: ρ « φ)« ρ « Ν !«, a paroemiac verse ut-
tered by a tortoise) and Et.Gud. s.v. φ «. By coming inside, the
tortoise will be deprived of its own home and consequently of its life.
Thus Hermes reverses the equation ‘indoors = safe, outdoors = danger-
ous’; for Hermes’ manipulation of proverbial speech in this scene, see
Tzifopoulos (2000, 152–53).
Finally, Servius on V. A. 1.505 transmits a fable regarding Hermes
and a maiden named Chelone: Jupiter was celebrating his marriage to
Juno and ordered Mercury to invite all gods and men to the wedding.
Only Chelone made light of the wedding and did not attend. As a pun-
ishment, Hermes threw her house into the river and transformed her
into the homonymous animal, a tortoise, so that she always carries her
home on her back.
Lines 36–37 257
37–38 The tortoise whose function while alive will be to avert magical
spells will be transformed into an irresistibly enchanting singer; cf. Tzi-
fopoulos (2000) cited at 36n.
37 N !: for the combination, see Denniston GP 284. may seem

odd, since the following lines describe a benefit humans will derive from
the tortoise. But it will be part of the tortoise’s future timai both to ward
off baneful incantations and sing at the banquets. In this sense,
connects to C’ $7! at 35.
&« «: ()!(, commonly derived from
7) (pace Goebel [1967, I 428–29]), is an ‘attack’ by means of
magical incantations or the 3φ« of a demon. The phrase recurs in
h.Dem. 230 (cf. also 228 and Richardson on h.Dem. 228–30 and his
228n.); Zumbach 9 thinks that our verse derived from h.Dem., without
elaborating on the evidence for the influence of h.Dem on h.Herm.
Given that h.Dem. 228–30 have an incantatory ring, it is possible that
both poems draw on a common stock of magical formulae. Magical
curing is not found in the Homeric epics except at Od. 19.457–58 where
the sons of Autolycus 9
# s )μ | 3!/.
Neither ()!( nor )7 appears in Homer or Hesiod.
At Od. 24.305, P)7 (< ; cf. his son’s name, #Aφ«
‘lavish’ < $φ) is a proper name, at Il. 4.443 ) means
‘exceedingly wealthy’; and Pindar uses at P. 3.46 )7 (<
)
of diseases. At Alcm. 5.2 col. ii 11–13 it has passive sense and is con-
trasted with C.
05: ‘a defense’ is Ruhnken’s emendation of the MSS / or
F/ (vel sim.); it means in Homer ‘impediment,’ ‘grip’ (Il. 12.260,
13.139, 14.410, 21.259).
While Hermes’ words imply that the living tortoise –notice the em-
phatic &@![] at 38 – will be used against magical incantations that
cause diseases, other sources indicate that it is the dead animal that had
this function. Nic. Al. 559 mentions the legs of a tortoise as ingredient
for an antidote against the salamander. Apparently, the tortoise meat
was thought to have an effect on the bowels as well; cf. the proverb
ν
/)@(« / κ φ ν κ φ (cited by Athen. 337b; see
Olson and Sens [2000, xxix n. 31, and p. 4 = testimonium 3]). For the
tortoise as a means of curing diseases, cf. Plin. Nat. 32.37 (toothache),
32.40 (fever), and Riess (1893, 77); and Brillante (2001, 105 n. 18) for
258 Commentary
the use of the tortoise as a talisman. Plin. Nat. 32.33 also records that
the meat of a tortoise was used against witchcraft. Finally, Gp. 1.14.8,
reports that the marsh-dwelling tortoise was used to avert the attack of
hail on one’s vineyard. One should walk around the vineyard holding
the tortoise upside down in one’s right hand, and then place it supine in
the middle of the vineyard, making sure that it could not turn right
itself.
38 ν ξ " 9 «: see 25n.

μ $ «: a potential optative verging on a
future tense; cf. Chantraine, GH II 221 (§326). is Hermann’s emen-
dation of the transmitted Ν that causes here hiatus.
This statement is ironic, too, since the tortoise is an essentially
speechless animal; on its sound (!*«), see Arist. HA 536a7–8. The
transformation of the speechless tortoise into a voiced instrument
through Hermes’ agency is reflected at S. Ichn. 300 quoted on p. 83 and
Nic. Al. 559–61 quoted on p. 87.
Hermes fulfils his promise to the tortoise at 418–55 where the lyre’s
beautiful sound and Hermes’ song enchant Apollo.
39–51 Hermes kills the tortoise and constructs the first lyre
This is the earliest literary description of the lyre’s construction. The
process can be reconstructed as follows. After the tortoise was killed,
most of its soft body-parts were removed by means of the )1φ
(chisel). The plastron (i.e. its ‘breast-plate’) was then cut off, and the re-
mainder of the animal’s body was scooped out. Thereafter, the oblong
protuberances in the interior of the shell along the neural bones as well
as the axillary and inguinal buttresses (see Alderton [1988, 21 fig. 3])
were evened with a file, and the interior of the carapace became smooth.
The only exception was the protuberance located at the proneural bone
(near the head) which could be used as a ‘ledge’ on which the lyre’s arms
rested. Four to six holes were drilled to accommodate the instrument’s
arms. Sometimes, additional holes were drilled in the shell’s rim to fa-
cilitate the fastening of the ox-hide; the surviving shells from Arta and
Lokroi contain fourteen and sixteen holes respectively (for such shells,
see figs. 9a–b). Holes were also drilled at the place where the animal’s
head had been located on which the / * (the piece on which
Lines 37–38, 39–51 259
the strings were fastened) rested. The arms were inserted first and were
curved inwards in such a way as to meet near the proneural bone. Then
the &* (cross-bar) was attached. This had two rectangular slots
through which the arms passed; cf. Landels (1999, 54). The tuning
mechanism ( *))«) was fitted on the &*. These were probably
not pieces of hide from cow’s neck as is sometimes assumed, but rather
pins or pegs; see Neubecker (1977, 70–71 n. 28), Pöhlmann and Tichy
(1982), Pöhlmann (1987, 321–22), Bélis (1995, 1028–30), and Landels
(1999, 51–53). Thereafter, the open part of the shell was covered with
ox-hide. In some cases it appears that an opening (= sound-hole) was
left in the hide, though it is not possible to tell whether this was a regu-
lar practice; cf. Dumoulin (1992, 231). The / * (or "7 ,
@) was then added at the lower end of the shell, followed by the
*< (or «/, ‘bridge’) on which the strings rested. For a
representation of a lyre, see fig. 8.
The poet’s description of the process does not follow the proper
order as reconstructed by Faklaris (1977, 226–30): The ox-hide is fa-
stened around the tortoise-shell before the arms are inserted. Fur-
thermore, not all the parts of the lyre are mentioned, e.g. the *</
, the / * or "7 (although they may be implied),
and the *))«; nor is anything said about the removal of the plas-
tron (though Ludwich 84 introduced it into the narrative by conjectur-
ing 3# Ν Wφκ )1!« )φ) ). at 45). The reason for this
inexactitude may be that the poet’s description may derive from his
knowledge as a performer rather than an artisan. Musicians, however
good, may not always be familiar with all the technicalities involved in
the construction of their instrument. Besides, this description is not
meant to be an instruction manual, but to give to the audience only the
necessary information to convey that Hermes knew how to make the
lyre; cf. the description of Odysseus building his ‘raft’ at Od. 5.243–62:
there, too, we receive some information on the various tasks involved in
building a ship, but by no means a complete set of instructions.
On the construction of the lyre, see Faklaris (1977), with plates
77–81, Aign (1963), Roberts (1981), Paquette (1984), Maas and Snyder
(1989, 34–36, 48–51 [depictions], 79–99), Dumoulin (1992, 225–51),
Mathiesen (1999, 237–43, 247–48). Tortoise-shells that were used as
soundboxes for chelys-lyres are discussed by Faklaris (1977) and Du-
moulin (1992, 101–105).
260 Commentary
39 5λ Ϊ’ $φ 9 : occurs only here in early Epic; for similar
expressions, see the formulaic apparatus. For a young god lifting a
beautiful Ν , cf. h.Dem. 15–16 π ’ Ν "7!!’ % < / -
!λ Ϊ’ Νφ | )μ Ν )".
40 ΝB ;% - φ% : this probably looks back to 34 $))# F!

!# « )"@ as Cantilena (1982, 244) suggests.
φ% & μ Ν": cf. )μ Ν also at line-end in 32
with n. The phrase is repeated at 52; the verses frame the killing of the
animal and the construction of the lyre, setting off this section by means
of ring-composition. Contrast the poet’s description of the tortoise as an
μ Ν to Hermes’ treatment of it in the following lines; Fur-
ley (2011b, 225) rightly speaks of a “startling aesthetic oxymoron” here.
41 †$ « is “one of the great mysteries of this hymn” as Agar

(1916, 37) remarked. It is clear that at 41–42 Hermes kills the tortoise,
but it is hard to tell whether the killing is expressed by $()7!« or
through # <* (!. And before we establish the precise mean-
ing of $()7!«, it is impossible to determine whether )φ) in
the same line is to be construed with $()7!«, with <* (!, or
with both.
Nicander Th. 705 might be of some help: describing the killing of
a sea-turtle, he writes 7# $ @!« (‘turn upside down’) φ)
«
$μ μ $ < | 1) /) 9 ( (‘with a knife of bronze’). The
sense of $ @!« would be welcome here and may be reflected in
S. Ichn. 287 (< K«); cf. Brillante (2001, 101–102), who proposes to
retain $()7!«, rendering rovesciare (‘turn around’). But $(-
) is unattested, and $)), from which it is often explained on
the analogy of )): () :: )): (), is not found elsewhere
in this sense. Unless we consider $()7!« as an otherwise unat-
tested verb, formed from the root *kwel- (see Pokorny s.v. ku el∂-
el-, ku
‘to turn, turn oneself, to move around/about, dwell’ etc.; > ),
*)«, )1), with Aeolic consonantism as in ) and the mean-
ing ‘turn around/over’ (for the force of $-, cf. $ ), we must
resort to emendation as several generations of scholars have done.
Barnes proposed $(7!« which is satisfying paleographically
but does not yield good sense; he explained his conjecture by claiming
that Hermes jumped up towards a window or opening of the cave so
Lines 39–41 261
that he could remove the flesh and bones of the tortoise from its shell
with greater accuracy (“ut tenelli Mercurioli studium ostendatur, qui
huic operi se accingens, alacriter resiliit ad fenestram forte aliquam, ut
accuratius sculperet carnes et ossa testudinis”). But all this is not to be
found in the Greek.
Hermann conjectured $)7!« (= constipans, ‘pressing to-
gether’), which Allen (1897a, 254) considered as possibly satisfying and
suggested that this verse probably refers to the killing of the tortoise,
since 42 mentions the removal of the animal’s @. Radermacher, too,
accepted $)7!« and took it to mean quetschen, i.e. ‘crushing’ or
‘squeezing’. $) is unattested, but the simplex occurs at AP 6.282
(= 3590 HE; Theodorus) where it means ‘compress.’ The verb is used of
making wool into felt ()«) and of compressing military formations.
At Aristophanes fr. 197 it refers to pounding octopus; cf. Pl.Com.
189.17 with Degani (2004, 571).
To avoid the unattested $)7!«, van Herwerden (1876, 68)
and (1888, 71) suggested 3’ Ν )7!« citing parallels for the col-
location 3’ Ν (e.g., Il. 11.171, 13.15, 15.730; Od. 3.32, 15.473; Hes.
Th. 303, 330), while Evelyn-White (1914a, 222) proposed the gruesome
$( @!«, suggesting that Hermes cut off the head and legs of the
tortoise before scooping out the shapeless mass. Shelmerdine retains
the MSS $()7!« and interprets Hermes’ actions here as a “co-
medy of innocence.” On the basis of representations in the visual arts,
viz. depictions where a child is seen to whirl a tortoise tied to a rope (see
the depiction in Keller [1913, II 259]), she goes on to suggest that this is
part of a game, where the divine child plays with his toy and tries to
make the victim agree to its sacrifice (on this issue, see below, p. 326).
Later the game becomes serious, when Hermes decides to kill the tor-
toise. But the ‘agreement’ with the speechless animal has already taken
place (30–38), Hermes has already decided to kill the tortoise, and it is
thus difficult to see the purpose of such a game. At any rate, Hermes’
treatment of the tortoise resembles the cruel treatment of animals
sometimes observed in children.
West adopts Ruhnken’s (1782, 213) $()@!«, a word attested in
a gloss in Hsch. (s.v. $)@!· [κ] $)15 4442)2 and renders
2 H has $()@!«; Phot. 1563 transmits $)@!· $)15. For $)- cf.
262 Commentary
‘he probed with a chisel’ (sc. )φ)

). However, on the basis of Hesy-
chius’ definition, the participle should mean ‘having carved’; and as
LfgrE, s.v. $()
! note, the sense of $- would be unclear.
I would suggest $ )7!«, a verb attested in the sense ‘turn
about/around’ at E. Or. 231 ($ 1 ) «).
!φ ) %: is found here for the first time; it subsequently recurs
at Theoc. 1.28, Call. Aet. fr. 100.2 The word is masculine according
to Theoc. 1.28, who compares !φ-!φ«, )"-)"«,
though tool-names with the suffix -- tend to be neuter; cf. Zum-
bach 10 and Schwyzer I 489–90.
) : cf. Nic. Th. 705–706 quoted above.
42 +- (): (lit.) ‘marrow,’ hence ‘flesh’ (so Greve, Ruhnken, Franke,
and Baumeister; cf. Pi. fr. 111.5 and in Hp. Morb. 7.122 [V 468]. Some
commentators ancient and modern understood ‘marrow’ also at Il.
19.27 ( # Ω φ, ξ / * !79 (). There has
been disagreement on whether @ has here a concrete meaning, i.e.
‘marrow’, hence ‘flesh’ (cf. Baumeister, Càssola ad loc.), or is used
metaphorically, as ‘life’ or ‘vital force’ (Ilgen, Shelmerdine, and West
[2003a] who renders ‘life-stuff’). Allen (1897a, 254), Radermacher, and
Càssola ad loc. see an analogy here, viz. ‘body: shell :: marrow: bone.’
The latter renders () as ‘pulp,’ which implies that the tortoise’s
body is already crushed. Coupled with &8 , ‘life force’ would
be an odd metaphorical combination, unparalleled in the style of the
Hymn. For the semantics of @ (‘life force, marrow, duration of life’),
see Benveniste (1937), Festugière (1949), and Degani (2001, 11–19). For
Brillante (2001, 100–101) the poet, by employing @, not only points
to the death of the tortoise but also to the animal’s abandoning its pre-
vious status (i.e. its use against ()!(, as a living creature) and en-
tering a new one (i.e. its becoming an $*«).
What we have here is an image inspired from the construction of the
aulos. Auloi were often made of bones and one had to remove the mar-
row from them; cf. West (1992, 86) and Mathiesen (1999, 183). Our poet
!)( and Latte I 497 (Mantissa adnotationum). In general, 7)( is an examination tool
(cf. LSJ s.v.), clearly out of place in the context of the Hymn where Hermes intends to kill
the tortoise. On the other hand, !)( is a carving tool or knife as well as a surgical instru-
ment appropriate for scooping out the remains of the animal.
Lines 41–43 263
uses an image drawn from aulos-construction to describe the creation

of a different type of instrument. In the mythological time in which the
story takes place, the lyre was not known, as Apollo’s words at 450–52
indicate (he seems to have known only the aulos), and the poet adapts
the description of the lyre’s construction to this idea.
*&8 : LSJ render ‘transfix,’ but we should probably under-
stand it as ‘remove through carving.’ For the formation, cf. !
(Opp. Hal. 4.546), $ (Il. 5.337), $ (Il. 10.267, h.Herm.
178). A hint at the meaning of <* (! may be provided by Arat.
268–69, a reminiscence of the Hymn ( λ /)« D’ S)(· κ ’ Ν ’ 3
λ ) ) | E (« * (!, [1 ( ρ )!).
Aratus’ * (! cannot mean ‘drilled’; that would be too elliptical a
description by any standard. Given the necessity of removing the ani-
mal’s fleshy parts from the shell and to smoothe the protuberances in
the tortoise’s shell, Aratus’ * (! should be taken as a synonym of
* ! (‘carved, shaped’; cf. LSJ, s.v. II), and the Hymn’s
<* (! could have a similar sense; see p. 86–87.
>) 6 is used of the Centaurs (Il. 1.268, [Hes.] fr. 209.5), of
goats (Od. 9.155), of a hare (h.Hom. 19.43), and once of the Nymphs
(h.Aphr. 257 with Faulkner ad loc.); Alcman 89.4 uses it of animals in
general, distinguished from the ' , the « )!!», the sea’s
@), and the φ).
56 «: first here; it subsequently recurs at Hdt. 1.47.3 (oracle),
1.48.2. Sappho 58.12 has φ) )1 /)1.
43–46 The following similes compare Hermes’ quickness of action to

the speed of thought (43–44) and light (45–46). Elsewhere, flashing eyes
are attributed to Hermes at 237–38 and 415. For the idea, cf. Il.
15.80–83 ³« # Ρ# r $<9
( *« $ «, Ρ« # λ ))κ | )(-
)Ω« φ !λ )9 (! 7!9( | “3# F( ν 3”, 79(!
)), | γ« « * 6H (, A.R. 4.847–48
Cκ # % ( $ 1« ξ ") | )…, and Malten
(1961, 13–14 n. 10).
43 Hermes is likened here to a man beset by cares who has a brilliant

idea on the spur of the moment. This idea is the fabrication of the lyre,
while the cares of 44 may refer to the fact that his divine status has not
yet been recognized.
264 Commentary
³« ’ ² … : for ³« ’ Ρ (²*), see Chantraine, GH

II 252–53 (§ 372). All MSS except B have 7!, rightly adopted by
Radermacher and Càssola; for this short-vowel subjunctive, cf. SGDI
III 1167 ($ 15, ), Buck GD §150, and West on Hes. Th. 81
and Op. 293.
R4 : for speed of thought, cf. Il. 15.80, Od. 7.36, h.Apol.
186, 448, [Hes.] Sc. 222, Thales, T 1.129 (p. 71 D.-K.), Thgn. 985,
App.Anth. 407.2. (p. 356 Cougny).
3 : for the chest as the seat of the mind or thought, cf. Il.
3.63, 4.309, Hes. Th. 122, Thgn. 121, 396, 507, Adesp.Eleg. 22.2, PMG
889. ! is identified with the mind by synecdoche and is thus said
to be traversed by a thought.
44 # «: for the lengthening of the , cf. Il. 5.649, 17.435, Od. 1.218
and Wyatt (1969, 65–68).
Ρ : on this use of the epic (digressif-permanent), see Ruijgh,
épique §§2–3, 739: the relative clause expresses a permanent situation
(mortals are generally beset by cares) during which a temporary occur-
rence, % 1 *( 7!, appears.
" : Homer has : e.g. Il. 1.52 (which Choerob. ap. An.
Ox. II 180 cites as ) 12.44, 278, 287, 296 etc.; and « e.g. at
Il. 10.264, 11.552, 17.661, Od. 12.92 etc. The latter presupposes a form
1« (cf. /: /1«); on the accent of (by analogy to
, instead of the expected ), see Schwyzer I 385. Rader-
macher’s *« is guaranteed by Call. Aet. fr. 75.36 (though Call.
Cer. 64 has ˘ [< - + -«], a form found also in Pindar
O. 1.53, N. 3.44, fr. 52f.16), Choerob. loc.cit., and Hsch. 89 1-
· * . It is formed by analogy to *« (< *!-«
from *ρ«); see Wackernagel (1969, 1176 n. 2), who argues against
Barnes’ ; and LfgrE, s.v. *«. The reading may
have arisen due to later Greek pronunciation.
A similar alternative spelling (though without any doubt about the
presence of --) is observed also in the case of K1« (Matro 1.79
Olson-Sens) and K*« (cf. Hp. Aër. 6 [II 26], 22 [II 60], 29 [II 70]);
elsewhere it appears as K˘« (e.g. Theoc. 28.11, Call. fr. 547,
App.Anth. 238.3 [p. 128 Cougny]).
&%φ-: ‘haunt’, a frequentative of ! φ. The indi-
cative is the usual mood with a digressif-permanent (Ruijgh,
Lines 43–45 265
loc.cit.). For the idea, cf. Hes. Op. 102–103 ! ξ $ @! …
C* φ!.
does not occur in Homer, but Hes. Op. 178* has
«. Sometimes it has a more specialized sense (erotic cares) as in
Sappho 1.26, Theoc. 17.52. At 160 it means ‘a cause of concern.’
45 ’ Ρ makes 43–46 a double simile, since two comparative clauses

are used with the same apodosis. Multiple similes are found in Homer,
but they consist of sets of relative and correlative clauses, e.g. Il.
2.455–83 (5 similes) and 14.394–401; for a double simile such as this
one, cf. A.R. 4.1298–1303 (³« # Ρ … ν Ρ … —«).
Ludwich 85, followed by Clay Politics 107 with n. 40, coordinates
the two images and suggests λ *, considering the beams that whirl
from the eyes as the result of the thought that crosses the man’s chest.
Although the coordination of the two images would be in keeping with
what the poet says of Hermes’ eyes elsewhere (cf. 43–46n.), the simile’s
point is to illustrate the speed with which Hermes translates his ideas
into action; hence it is best not to coordinate 43–44, which compare
Hermes’ speed with that of thought, with 45 that compares it to the
speed of light.
On # (< _ + ζ), see Schwyzer II 565 with n. 3 and above, p. 62 n. 40.
"- : is used of directing one’s eyes/glance; cf. Il.
17.679–80, Bacch. 17.17–18, E. Or. 1458–59. But here the image is dif-
ferent, as it implies the emission of rays from the eyes; cf. 278–79, 415.
$’ >φ"- $!: $ 7 does not occur in Homer or
Hesiod (it is found at Ar. Av. 925, A.R. 2.42 etc.; A.R. 3.1018–19 has
$ « | Sφ)), but Hesiod has $ five times in the
phrase X $ 1’ 3/!; cf. also Bacch. 9.36 and Theoc.
23.7–8 ($ /)«). $ 7 denotes here the scintillating
gleam of the eyes accompanied by quick motion; cf. Debrunner (1907,
238).
Treu (1968, 252–53) detects a progressive development in the refe-
rences to light emanating from the eyes in archaic poetry: in Homer this
can be the sign of a divine being, of human excitement, or a beast’s preda-
tory character; in Il.Pers. 4.8 the R $! are a sign of
" * *(, ‘depressed mind’ (Ρ« W λ AF« «
/ | R # $! " ** *(),
while here Hermes’ $ suggest the twinkling of the creative spirit.
266 Commentary
For the idea that the eye has an active role in the process of seeing,
in that it emits a fiery substance, cf. Emp. 84 D.-K., Pl. Ti. 45b–c, Arist.
Sens. 437a23–25, Janko on Il. 13.837, Onians (1988, 76–78), Rakoczy
(1996, esp. 19–37). For the look as the result of a state of mind, cf. Il.
1.103–104, 12.466, 15.607–608, 19.365–67, Mugler (1960, esp. 60–63).
46 Ϊ’ 0 « λ 0! : a phrase that acquired proverbial status and

is cited by the paroemiographers (Zen. 1.77, Greg.Cypr. 1.48, Apostol.
2.77); the order of 3« and 3 in this phrase may vary. For other
proverbial expressions in the Hymn, cf. 36, 92—93, 120.
For word and deed occurring simultaneously, cf. Il. 19.242, Od.
2.272, Hdt. 3.135.2, A.R. 4.103, McLennan on Call. Jov. 88, and dictum
factum at Ter. An. 381, Hau. 760, 904; further Barck (1976) and Rooch-
nick (1990) for whom ‘word-and-deed’ implies a speech act.
The digamma in 3« and 3 is not observed here; but contrast
12 3 and 16 ) 3 , and further Od. 2.272 where both di-
gammas are observed; see Janko (1982, 133–34).
& : in early Epic 7! is used of planning evil against
someone (often coupled with ) μ R) , 3 $ «, K -
"!(, or 7 ) ); cf. Il. 2.38, 7.478, 22.395; Od. 3.194, 3.303,
10.115, 11.429, 22.169, Hes. Th. 166, 172, Op. 49, 95 etc. Here it may
retain something of its sinister connotations, since the 3 Hermes
plans means the death of the tortoise.
' « E«: Shelmerdine ad loc. compares 1« with
Homeric )«. In general, the two epithets are not entirely simi-
lar: )« is a contamination of * -)« and 1« =
*« (Debrunner [1917, 155 n. 2]). 1« is much rarer: it is found
in archaic poetry elsewhere (apart from the formula 1« E
« in
Hes. Th. 938) at Pi. O. 14.24, where it has active meaning (= ‘bestowing
honour’), and is used of Hermes ten times in the Hymn (84, 96, 130,
150, 253, 298, 316, 404, 571). Our poet must have understood 1«
as a synonym of *«, and the recurrence of this adjective in the
Hymn emphasizes Hermes’ desire to win glory through his actions (cf.
172–3, 477); cf. Jaillard (2007, 76–80).
47 8: Hermes fixed stalks of reeds to support the arms (cf. S. Ichn.
316 [7) <1) ]* « with Diggle [1996, 11–12])
but also perhaps to serve as the instrument’s bridge. (1 is some-
Lines 45–48 267
times used in Homer of transfixing a weapon in an opponent’s body

(e.g. Il. 4.460, 6.10, 13.372, Od. 22.83, excepting Il. 2.664
« 3(<;
cf. further Pi. N. 7.26–27 3< φ … <φ«) and is usually
followed by (!, … 3)!!, and the like (cf. 48 7«
).
& : ‘in proper, measured lengths,’ i.e. corresponding to
the size of the shell. Cf. Hes. Op. 720 ( ); the phrase appears
first here, and subsequently it appears mostly in the singular and
usually means ‘composed in metre’, e.g. Pl. Phdr. 258d, 267a, R. 380c,
X. Mem. 1.2.21, Archest. 40.3, Arist. Pol. 1459a17 ( ) ), Rh.
1361a34–35 ( «), or ‘in measure, moderately’ (= «), e.g.
E. HF 1251, [D.H.] Rh. 10.14, Gal. VI 360, X 747 etc.
«: ‘stalks’ without any technical meaning here; but *<
was also a technical term designating a part of the lyre, the bridge,
also called ; cf. Faklaris (1977, 230). Hermes may have used
reeds to construct both the *< proper (i.e. the bridge) and the
/ * or "7 (located at the lower part of the instrument,
where the strings were attached), which was normally made of metal.
These reeds may also have been used to stabilize the lyre’s arms in the
interior of the shell; cf. Roberts (1981, 308–309) with pl. 72. They may
also have played the role of the bass-bar and the soundpost (called
anima in Italian and 5/7 in contemporary Greek, perhaps the /
mentioned by Hsch. at 405: )«· λ μ K «
)1 « /) located under the G and D and the A and E strings of a
violin, respectively.
: )« occurs here first, but )( is found at Il.
19.222 and Od. 14.214. )«, like *<, may designate in poetry
the pan-pipes; cf. at Pi. O. 10.84, N. 5.38, E. El. 702 (lyr.), IT 1126 (lyr.),
IA 577 (lyr.). Eust. Il. III 113 (p. 818) records that * « were thinner
than ) and that pan-pipes were made out of the former, auloi
from the latter.
48 « 3 -: editors often construe 7« ,

with tmesis and anastrophe (so AS) to avoid construing with two
different cases in the same verse. But this solution causes problems of its
own: The poet would be thus using a prepositional phrase ( W)
after the compound 7«; besides, if is the tortoise’s shell,
then what is W*«? Normally in Homer W*« is an ox-hide (e.g.
268 Commentary
h.Herm. 124, Il. 10.155, 12.263, Od. 1.108), or what is made of ox-hide,
e.g. a shield at Il. 4.447 (cf. Ar. Pax 1274); it designates further a wolf’s
hide at Il. 10.334, while Pi. I. 6.37 uses it of a lion’s skin. But Hermes is
clearly working only on the tortoise’s shell; this would leave us with two
different words for ‘shell’ in the same line. It seems thus preferable to
take 7« absolutely (cf. LSJ s.v. IV) and emend
W (see below).
For the drilling of holes in the tortoise-shell, see the introductory
note above, p. 258–59.
was introduced by Barnes. The clausula -
/)@(« recurs at Hdt. 1.47.3* (an oracle); an indirect con-
firmation of Barnes’ conjecture may be found in Paul.Sil. Descriptio
Ambonis 118 (p. 364 Veh) s φ /)@(«,
possibly an echo of h.Herm. 48. Pierson (1752, 156) conjectured
) /)@(« comparing Emp. 76.2 D.-K. ) /)1
.
49 $φ … : here $φ = (cf. LfgrE s.v. A 5 c) rather than

‘on both sides.’ The lyre-maker would cover with ox-hide only the part
previously occupied by the plastron that was removed at the beginning
of the process. The hide was then tied or stitched around the shell’s rim;
see above, p. 259–60.
… < «: this detail calls to mind the fact that the Hymn poet
has reversed the sequence of the poem’s main events, the cattle-theft
and the fabrication of the lyre. In the Hymn’s telling, Hermes does
not kill the cattle in order to obtain their hide so that he can use it in
fashioning the first lyre (although this would be a more coherent nar-
rative). See section 5.1 of the introduction for the different versions of
the story.
J9 : cf. Il. 1.608, 18.380, 18.482, 20.12, Od. 7.92,
(! !!) where the « (‘technical
[Hes.] fr. 141.5 (9
skill’) of Hephaestus are mentioned. Hermes is presented here as a
craftsman and inventor, and through the employment of !! the
poet may invite an implicit comparison with Hephaestus’s craftsman-
ship; cf. Richardson (2010) ad loc. and 52n. (on C λ κ <).
50 5«: = M; 7/« may be a scribal Atticism; cf. Janko (1982, 143).

The arms of the lyre were often made of horn – hence they were also
Lines 48–51 269
called – or wood that was hewn into the shape of horns. The
arms were probably curved in the interior of the lyre as well in order to
be fastened to the walls of the shell. They were normally joined to one
another at the top by means of a horizontal piece of wood (&*); see
Faklaris (1977, 226–28) and Dumoulin (1992, 231–35) both with
images. Nic. Al. 562 calls them $ «; see p. 87–88.
@! : a ‘crossbar,’ linking the two 7/«. The word is probably
neuter, though it also found as a masculine (e.g. h.Dem. 217, Pl. Ti.
63b). For the neuter, cf. Il. 9.186–87 (φ* )9
( | )9

)9(,
λ ’ $ 1 &μ _), Thphr. HP 5.7.6 « (‘holm-oak’)
… λ « & )1 « λ 5)( «; and Dumoulin (1992,
235–36). The *))« (‘tuning-pegs’) were attached to the &*.
$φ ) does not occur in Homer, where we only find the nomi-
native and accusative (Νφ). $φ is found again at Archil. 328.7,
Alc. SLG S262.20 (= 298.20), Pi. P. 3.57, N. 5.18, and frequently in tra-
gedy and prose. H.Dem. 15 has / !λ Ϊ# Νφ, while a genitive Νφ
occurs at [Hes.] fr. 338 (cited with $φ at Ar. V. 725).
51 J: On the presumed significance of the number of the strings for

dating the Hymn and its relation to Terpander, see p. 133–35 and Du-
moulin (1992, 97–98). Other sources also mention the lyre as having
seven strings; cf. Pi. P. 2.70–71, N. 5.24–25, E. IT 1128–29, Ptol. Harm.
23, Luc. Astr. 10, Luc. DDeor. 11.4, Pamprep. 4.18 (I 118 Heitsch), AP
9.250.5–6. An aition for the seven strings of (Apollo’s) lyre is given by
Call. Del. 249–55 (from the number of the swans which sang during
Apollo’s birth), [Eratosth.] Cat. 24 (the seven planets or the seven At-
lantids), and Pi. P. K*!« P (II, 1–2 Drachmann). For the
number of the lyre’s strings, see also West (1992, 62–64).
From the mid-5th c. on, innovative citharodes added more strings to
the instrument; cf. Tim. 791.229–30 and Ion of Chios 32. Boeth.
Inst.Mus. 1.20, p. 205–209 (cf. Exc.Nicom. 4, p. 274.1–12) presents a hi-
story of the development of the number of the lyre’s strings: Hermes,
Orpheus (4 strings), Coroebus of Lydia (5), Hyagnis of Phrygia (6), Ter-
pander (7), Lycaon of Samos (8), Prophrastos of Pieria(?) (9), Histiaios
of Colophon (10), Timotheos of Miletos (11); see the discussion in
Hagel (2010, 80–87).
"% : all MSS read here !φ@« (‘harmonious’), but
Antig. Mir. 7 (and Parad.Pal. 20, who draws on Antigonus) quote the
270 Commentary
verse with () instead. I have argued elsewhere (Vergados,

2007a) in favour of the form provided by Antigonus’ citation for the fol-
lowing reasons: (i) Antigonus is very faithful to the phrasing of the
sources he cites; (ii) it seems furthermore most unlikely that Antigonus
would commit an error precisely on the point he aimed to elucidate; (iii)
!1φ« is very rarely used of an instrument’s strings, which is at any
rate a late usage that derives from technical writing.
Franklin (2002, 676–77) reads !φ@« as a technical term “at-
testing that consonance was the key feature of the new seven-stringed
instrument,” and this consonance (!φ) implies the diatonic
genos. He also notes on p. 676 n. 21 that “the key defense of the reading
!φ@« … is that Sophocles Ichn. 326 (Maltese) [= 327 Diggle]
used !1φ in his adaptation of the myth” and adds that though
() is the lectio difficilior, assuming that Sophocles’ use was
inspired by h.Herm. is a more economical solution than positing the
influence of Sophocles’ satyr-play on the Hymn’s tradition. However,
Sophocles’ <1φ refers not to the consonance of the strings’
tuning but to the harmonious joining of their sound with Hermes’
song: / # $1 !φ [)«. | <1φ <
Cμ *)!
« )1 «; cf. Diggle (1996, 12) “what elates
Hermes … is not merely the sound of the lyre but the responsiveness of
the lyre to his own voice.” Besides, !φ@« may have entered the
Hymn’s tradition through a gloss whose information derived from tech-
nical writing.
>% … 5 «: sheep were presumably available in abundance in
the region where Hermes dwelled (cf. 2 )7) and 232 ))

) 1 "*! (), though Hermes is never said to
have killed any sheep in the poem. Strings were also called (lit.
‘sinews’), and Suda 1415 ( "«) observes λ / « )
3 λ « 1 , Ρ )μ _!; cf. Hagel
(2010, 90 n. 108). The strings of the lyre had all roughly the same
length; Hagel (2010, 276).
& ' : cf. Od. 21.407 W(« !! ) λ *))
/ 7; stretching a string was also called , or
(Arist. Pr. 920b3, 921b27, Gal. IV 577, VIII 172). The process
of tuning was termed *&!; on this see Dumoulin (1992,
240–43), Paquette (1984, 116) with figs. L 37, 38; and Hagel (2010,
133–34) for the basic principles of the lyre’s tuning.
Lines 51, 52–62 271
52–62 Hermes’ first song

Immediately after he constructs the lyre, Hermes tries the new instru-
ment by performing a hymn celebrating his parents’ love-affair and
praising his own lineage. The song is reported by the poet, as are
Hermes’ second performance in 425–33 and Demodocus’ first and
third songs at Od. 8.73–82 and 499–520. Hermes’ hymn to himself
repeats an important theme encountered at the beginning of this poem,
i.e. the duration of Zeus and Maia’s affair (note the iterative % &!
at 58). Furthermore, the equal status of Hermes’ parents is emphasized
through ' 9 ( φ)*( at 58, while ))) at 57, through its
reminiscence of 6H (« / !) (Od. 11.604, Hes. Th. 454, 952,
[Hes.] fr. 25.29, 229.9; but cf. Sappho 103.10 and 123 / !)«
AΚ«) may aim at implicitly associating Maia with a divinity of higher
rank. Thus the poet’s attempt in the proem to bestow on Maia a higher
status has its parallels in Hermes’ song. All these elements serve
Hermes’ self-praise and the establishment of his identity, which is not
yet explicitly defined.
Hermes’ first musical performance is a mise en abyme: like the
Hymn poet, the poem’s main character performs a song of the same
genre and topic (i.e. another Hymn to Hermes), though possibly not in
the same manner, i.e. to the accompaniment of the lyre; but see Hering-
ton (1985, 19–20) for the idea that hexameter poetry may have been per-
formed to the accompaniment of the lyre in early times. The god, fur-
thermore, uses motifs similar to those found at the beginning of the
song, to which the (external) audience are in fact listening. Conse-
quently, this mise en abyme is ‘analeptic’ in nature. By repeating what
was mentioned at the beginning of the poem, the poet brings the nar-
rative back to the point where it was interrupted: Immediately after the
proem, Hermes left his cave to look for Apollo’s cattle. This thread of
the story broke off at the moment the divine child met the tortoise, and
resumes only after Hermes’ song. This double beginning is balanced by
the double ending (v. 507ff. which were considered by earlier scholars
as redundant; see n. ad loc.)
Moreover, by presenting the god performing such a song, the poet
implicitly commends his own art: he creates a divine precedent with
which his own performance complies. This implicit identification of
poet and ‘hero’ becomes clearer at 475–88 (see notes ad loc.). For the
272 Commentary
song’s topic, an adulterous relationship, Demodocus’ second song (the

‘Lay of Ares and Aphrodite’) at Od. 8.266–366 is a good parallel; but
here the adulterous component is downplayed in favour of Zeus’s and
Maia’s equality.
The comparison of Hermes’ song with the young men’s insults at
the symposia adds another significant point. This simile foregrounds
the solitary character of Hermes’ song and may, along with 31 and
480–82 where the tortoise is also linked to the sympotic environment,
offer a hint regarding the performative context of this Hymn (and per-
haps of other Homeric Hymns as well): a poem like h.Herm. may have
been performed at a banquet; cf. also the reference to sympotic practice
at 454, 499n., Eitrem (1906, 282), Clay Politics 7, Depew (2000, 63–64),
and Nobili (2011, 205–207) ch. 6, who proposes a semi-public sympo-
sium as a possible performance venue for the Hymn. In that case the
simile describing Hermes’ song would constitute a mise en abyme of the
poem’s actual (i.e. external) audience as well. Finally, Hermes’ perform-
ance is presented as improvisatory, < C!/(« (55); on this term,
see above p. 73–74; and for Hermes’ performances, see p. 4–14.
The motif of a god praising himself or herself through a hymn is not
unique to this poem. Cf. h.Hom. 19.27–47, where Pan and the Nymphs
sing of Pan’s birth from Hermes, and 27.18–20, where Artemis, along
with the Muses and the Graces, sings of her own and Apollo’s birth
from Leto; perhaps also Hes. Th. 75 (if refers also to the Muses’
own birth). Hermes is represented with a lyre or cithara already from
about 520 B.C.; see LIMC, s.v. Hermes 313–19, and below fig. 5.
52 :3 &λ κ 8: the comparison of Hermes with the divine

craftsman suggested at 49n. continues: This phrase is elsewhere used
only of Hephaestus, after his creation of Achilles’ shield (Il. 18.609), the
bed with the invisible chains (Od. 8.276), and Pandora (Hes. Th. 585),
all of which showcase his craftsmanship and metis. In all these
instances, C λ κ < is directly followed by what the god
constructs (! «, *), )μ * respectively); here this ten-
dency is adapted: μ Ν is construed with both < and
7& and functions as a link to 40.
φ% & μ Ν": cf. 40n. The construction of the lyre
is framed by two verses with identical second hemistich; for similar
patterns in the Hymn, see p. 125–29. φ should be construed with
Lines 52–53 273
the following 7&, indicating unrestrained action, see LSJ, s.v.
φ X 2b, i.e. ‘he went and tested the instrument.’
φ has met with the editors’ censure and has been variously
emended. Schneidewin changed it to / (construing it with <)
to create an opposition between the hands that fashioned the instru-
ment and the plectrum that played it. Baumeister, too, considered
φ a mistake due to the influence of 40 and offered Schneidewin’s
/ or Hermann’s K @ as possible solutions. For an overview of
earlier emendations, see Gemoll 203, who separated this phrase from
the rest of the sentence by commas. Radermacher ad loc. understood
φ adverbially as ‘hastening’; cf. 63 and 159.
For Ν in the context of song and poetry, cf. Pi. P. 5. 22–23
< * $ , | #A))@ Ν , I. 4.55–57
(6O( «) χ« C | »! S @!« $ W" 3φ-
! | !! )« $1 , and Bacch. 9.85–87 !L #
$)) " | ))!, F[ λ 9 ( «], | )[]
M![» "&@ Ν]% (with Maehler’s n. on 87).
53 ) %: the plectrum was made of metal, ivory, horn, bone, or

wood, and was attached to the sound-box by means of a cord; see
fig. 8, Faklaris (1977, 230), West (1992, 49–50, 65–68), Dumoulin
(1992, 243–44); for the various techniques of playing instruments of the
lyre type, see Roberts (1980). [Apollod.] 3.10.2 [III 113] makes Hermes
the inventor of the plectrum in addition to the lyre, which accords with
his tendency to give a more logical progression to the story. Our poet,
however, does not say anything about the plectrum’s construction or
provenance; cf. above, p. 259–60. for other such omissions.
At S. Ichn. 255 and 329 S 5) « suggests that Hermes was
playing the lyre without a plectrum, 5)) meaning ‘to pluck the
strings of an instrument with the fingers’; cf. Kaimio (1977, 179 n. 531).
Note that at 329 Diggle prints <²>5) «; see Diggle (1996, 13).
&@: Hermes ‘tried’ i.e. tested the strings one by one, pre-
sumably to see whether they were correctly tuned. Cf. Ov. Met. 5.339
praetemptat pollice chordas (≈ 10.145 temptavit), and Stat. Ach. 1.187
leviterque expertas pollice chordas.
3 «: this phrase poses some problems: «, the MSS
reading, does not occur anywhere in Homer and is restored in h.Dem.
399, where it means ‘part.’ AHS emended to )« ‘according to
274 Commentary
the tune,’ comparing with 419 and 501, where the MSS read )« (so
also West who renders ‘in a tuned scale’). But this use of )« would
be unhomeric: )« is found in Homer only in the plural in the sense
of ‘limbs’; see Koller (1965a, esp. 37–38), for )« ‘song.’ )«
‘according to the song/tune’ is furthermore unlikely because no song
exists yet to which Hermes’ lyre-playing would accord; in fact, he is
about to improvise a song that is ‘new’: it praises the ancestry of a
newly-born god; cf. also 443 where Apollo declares the novelty of
Hermes’ song. In combination with (&, « indicates
that Hermes was testing each string in turn ( having its distributive
sense), i.e. in succession, to determine if they were well-tuned, some-
thing that one expects a musician to do before he starts his perform-
ance; cf. LfgrE, s.v. «, Borthwick (1959, 27 n. 3), and Kaimio
(1974, 31). This is the opposite of Athen. 139e !« Ϊ ) )7 )
« / « /«. LSJ’s rendering s.v. (& ‘touched the
strings with it [sc. the plectrum]’ does not entirely capture the sense of
the passage.
π (): picks up /)@( (48) that was called an Ν at 52.
Dμ 5« occurs only here in early epic; cf. Bacch. 13.121
[E ] « Kμ /[ *«] (= men killed by the hand of H.). As can be
observed on depictions of lyre playing when the performer is sitting, the
performer’s hand is located by the strings, and the lyre is resting on his
lap; hence the /)«//)@( (i.e. the animal’s carapace as sound-box)
can be said to resound under the performer’s hand.
54 < ‘resounded awesomely’ is found in Homer

of sounds inspiring awe or fear. This cannot be the meaning either here
or in its recurrence at 420: both times a pleasant sound is suggested; cf.
also 54, where the god’s song is sweet, and Kaimio (1977, 109). Canti-
lena (1993, esp. 123–24) suggests that the sound of the lyre is termed
! ) here as it is heard for the very first time; at 420 where the
formula recurs, it is Apollo who listens to the lyre’s sound for the first
time; however, at 502 Cantilena prefers ’s ¹ * since at that point
the sound of the lyre does not inspire surprise in the listener because it is
no longer novel; but see 501–502n.
The description of pleasant song through such phrasing is not
unparalleled. At h.Apol. 184–85 /7 – usually the ringing of metal
or the gnashing of teeth (e.g., Il. 16.105, 16.794, 19.365, Od. 19.469;
Lines 53–56 275
[Hes.] Sc. 164, Tyrt. 19.20) – describes the lovely sound of Apollo’s
phorminx ( ξ φ* < | / ! Kμ )7 /κ 3/
¹ *!!); cf. Pi. fr. 140a.61 ([]!φ
% »
$|, E -
", φ ), E. IT 1128–29, A.R. 4.907 ( μ /-
) )« /(! [sc. #O φ1«] $
«). Elsewhere, the sound
of the lyre is termed 7 (421 7 …
«; Od. 17.261) or "7; see
Maas and Snyder (1989, 7). Sophocles must have sensed the incon-
gruity between the formula’s usual meaning and its employment in the
Hymn, as he has the satyrs frightened by the sound of the lyre in the Ich-
neutai 142–44.
"μ« ’ Dμ μ Ν : Kó = in accompaniment to the lyre; cf.
Il. 18.570, Od. 21.411, Call. Dian. 242, Del. 304; Patzer (1970, 645–46).
55 &8 : 5«: ‘improvising,’ ‘attempting a song on the spot.’

This does not have the negative connotations often found in C!/-
& whose range of meaning includes improvisation, taking an
initiative unprepared, hence often acting thoughtlessly and committing
errors; cf. Isoc. 9.41, 13.9, X. HG 5.2.32, Mem. 3.5.22, Pl. Euthphr. 5a,
16a (both coupled with ), Ap. 20c, Men. 235c, Phdr. 236d,
Aeschin 2.158, Dur. FGrH 76 F 68. In Homer C!/( designates
close combat (e.g., Il. 12.192, Od. 11.536; cf. C!/* Il. 7.273,
13.496, Od. 22.293, Tyrt. 11.29, A.R. 3.398). The sense ‘improvise’
arose by extension from the temporal meaning of C!/* (‘at
once, on the spot’); see p. 73–74.
% «:
Υ cf. A.R. 1.495 & $
« and above, p. 114.
56 π<: not in Homer or Hesiod, but cf.

" in Od.
8.262–63; the word occurs again in E. Heracl. 858, fr. 322.5 (Kannicht).
AHS p. 448 cite PMG 890.4 ( λ μ [sc. Ν !] π"»
φ)), 902.1 (!1 , !7"), Thgn. 877 (D" φ)
≈ 1070a * φ) ) and suggest that “π"( does not
mean ‘in their youthful prime,’ but ‘in their cups,’ ‘excited’”, adding that
“an π"(7«, therefore, is a reveler” (ibid.). To their references we may
add Anacr. 378 $ κ μ« 5O) 1!! 1φ9 (« |
μ 5E #α C λ <cv> ) !("»; cf. also Anacr.
402(a), Hdt. 2.133.4 (("(7 ‘place of amusement’; Suda 1299
("(7 α /(7 H *) ), Ael. NA 11.10, Athen.
425e λ κ 6H"( « $)! /! C«, F!«
276 Commentary
μ π"(7 )! !*!, and ¯ "[] at IvO 5.3

(500–450 BC); see also Ernst Fraenkel (1910–12, I 121–2).
*< : ‘tease each other with indirect at-
tacks’. This points to a mutual give and take between Hermes as singer
and the lyre; cf. 482–88 where the lyre is presented as providing answers
to the performer’s questions, answers whose pleasantness depends on
the degree of the performer’s skill and experience.
()< « does not occur in Homer or Hesiod; we find the
adverb ")7( once at Il. 4.6. ()"*)« implies attacks
‘from the side,’ hence perhaps ‘indirect.’ For such teasing at banquets,
cf. Adesp. Eleg. 27.3–6, Alex. 9.10 (with Arnott ad loc.), A.R. 1.457–59
(quoted on p. 113), Reitzenstein (1893, 26 n. 2), MacDowell on Ar.
V. 1308–13, Halliwell (1991, 291 with n. 49), who refers to the so-called
!*«, Collins (2004, 63–84), and Halliwell (2008, 102 n. 4). Natu-
rally, laughter is particularly associated with youth; cf. Halliwell (1991,
284–85).
M’s proparoxytone ") implies danger or recklessness (cf.
LSJ, s.v. ")« II 1–2) and is therefore inappropriate here.
Clay (1999, esp. 620–21 with n. 11) suggests that is
a kind of manipulative speech that aims at inducing the addressee to
follow a certain course of action; see also Clay (2003, 112–13), and
further Clarke (2001, 329–38) (with earlier bibliography), Lloyd (2004)
who applies Grice’s theory of conversation analysis, Gottesman (2008,
esp. 6–7), where he proposes that was a type of bantering,
characteristic of young men at feasts, that involved assertion of status
and could sometimes be playful (op.cit. p. 11), and Halliwell (2008,
102–103).
The idea underlying "*) ! is that these verbal
taunts are meant to provoke the addressees into responding with simi-
lar jeers and thus continue the game. At this point, however, Hermes
does not have an audience of equals as the banqueters do: his only audi-
ence are (possibly) Maia’s maids. Only when he acquires an audience of
like status (i.e. Apollo) will he be able to elicit the response he desires
(i.e. praise and the exchange of the lyre for the cattle).
For the etymology of / «, a compound whose two
lexemes repeat the same idea (<* -- < + , cf. Il.
16.792 ! φ-(-, Ar. Lys. 722 -)-!-(), see Perpil-
lou (1996, 120).
Lines 56–59 277
57 $φλ K λ M : this line has the
formal characteristics of a hymnal beginning, i.e. $φ with the accu-
sative announcing the song’s subject. Note, too, that this prepositional
phrase depends on a form of $; cf. 1n., Od. 8.267, h.Hom. 7.1,
19.1, 22.1, 33.1, and Terp. 2 (and above, 1n. on $φ &).
* : cf. / !)« used of Hera in the same sedes
and 52–64n.
58 ³« « R@ J9 φ: this verse is also typical in

hymnal openings, as it contains the hymnic relative that leads into the
mythical narrative and defines the subject matter of Hermes’ hymn
with greater precision: it will be an extra-marital love-affair, as in De-
modocus’ song at Od. 8.266–366.
The manuscripts offer Ρ ; this can only be understood as an inter-
nal accusative, but it yields poor sense. Ernesti conjectured ³«, which is
also found in as a correction by a second hand, but AS considered it
inadmissible graphically – unjustifiably in my view. For ³« introducing
a hymnic narrative, cf. Od. 8.268; h.Hom. 7.2, 27.19. The corruption of
³« to Ρ was perhaps caused by the ending of % &! .
For the implications of R@ (= S &! ) and J9 ,
see above, 52–64n. and p. 10. ' « does not occur in Homer or He-
siod (though ' « is of course attested). Homeric ' is a bond
between males, characterized by mutual trust that can be exhibited
either in battle (protection of each other) or in peace (commensality).
' in Homer can be of two kinds: a group of kings or a group
of warriors formed around a particular king; see Jeanmaire (1939,
97–111) and Scully (1981, 71 n. 6). Later it can designate any group of
people who engage in an activity together; cf. West on Hes. Op. 183.
Nagy (1999, 245 n. 5) prefers &! (), suggesting that the
young men at the symposia reenact the primal eris between Zeus and
Maia; but this is not supported by the text: the relationship between
Zeus and Maia, certainly different from that between the youths who
attend the banquet, is not one of eris, and it is Hermes, not the young
men of the simile, who sings of Zeus and Maia (i.e. reenacts their story
through his song); cf. Halliwell (2008, 102 n. 4).
59 F # : : for the genitive with the possessive, cf. 93 μ !μ C

with n. ad loc.
278 Commentary
! κ > &8 @% : ‘proclaiming his family to be

illustrious’. Hermes’ pedigree is both Olympian (son of Zeus) and
Promethean (via his maternal grandfather Atlas). In the Hymn, how-
ever, Hermes’ efforts are directed to his admission into the Olympian
community, but his metis recalls Prometheus; cf. 243n.
> : on the accent of the compound (S )«,
hence S ) here), see Wheeler (1885, 42) and Postgate (1924,
52) §191. R. Schmitt (1967, 90–93) provides Indo-European parallels
for the expressions ‘famous name’ and ‘famous on account of/with re-
spect to his name.’ Hermes again attempts to assert his status: since he
has not yet been recognized by Zeus (i.e. he is still a *«), he cannot
actually claim to have a famous pedigree. Notice the figura etymologica
in S ) <&.
60 !: I print the MSS with AS. Càssola adopts

Ilgen’s articulation # metri causa, though Ilgen himself did
not evoke any metrical reasons; he merely notes on this verse nos semper
reddimus verbis augmentum. (The question of the augment in h.Herm.
has been recently examined by Taida [2010]). Forms of occur
in Homer and Hesiod at line-end (see formulaic apparatus), but our
poet uses it consistently in the interior of the verse (429, 432).
belongs to the hymnic vocabulary (‘honour through
song’); cf. 429, 431, Pi. O. 3.1–5, Hdt. 5.67.5, E. El. 712, Ar. Th. 959–61
(lyr.), Pl. Lg. 799a etc.
$!3 6 'φ«: the combination $) @ does
not recur elsewhere in archaic epic (it is found again at A.R. 1.785). In
this part of Hermes’ song, the cave is described in terms reminiscent of
a megaron or house; cf. $) @ (60), ρ (61), C@«
(65). As already pointed out (23n.), the description of the
cave changes according to the rhetorical needs of the moment. How-
ever, such incongruous description of a dwelling-place is not unique to
the Hymn: Achilles’ tent is said to contain an F! at Il. 24.644,
which normally forms part of a palace (cf. Od. 3.399, 7.336, 18.102 et
al.).
61 For the tripods and cauldrons in Maia’s cave, cf. the craters and am-
phoras in the Nymphs’ cave on Ithaca at Od. 13.105–106. Pottery (in-
cluding craters and amphoras) has been found in caves where Pan and
Lines 59–62, 63–64 279
the nymphs were worshipped throughout Greece, though not in such

lavishness as the description of Hermes’ cave would have us assume, as
the survey in Larson (2001, 231–58) shows. Interestingly, in the Oisyme
cave in Thrace two inscriptions of cult societies (called hetairoi and
sympotai) were discovered, which imply ritual meals in the cave; see
Jameson (1956). However, Maia’s possessions are far more precious
than the votives found in nymphs’ caves, which can be explained as the
poet’s strategy to increase Maia’s mythological status, and by extension
Hermes’; cf. 246–52n.
& '«: is here scanned as five syllables, but elsewhere it is
treated as a quadrisyllable with synizesis (cf. 113 and Hes. Op. 607). For
its etymology (from $ or 3«) and meaning (‘abundant’), cf. Verde-
nius (1985, 32–33) and Frisk, s.v.
62 3 ξ φλ Ν : cf. the metrically equivalent *« ¹

Ν)) ) »/ (Od. 2.92, 13.381, 18.283) of Penelope deceiving
the suitors. Deriving from «, » indicates an eager desire or
a strong impulse to act; cf. LfgrE s.v. . Here, … Ν))
refers to Apollo’s cattle which 22 and 64 ( &) reveal to be
the object of Hermes’ desire.
63–141 Hermes and the cattle

63–67 Hermes leaves his cave again
63–65 These verses pick up ideas that already appeared in 20–22; see n.
ad loc. Thus, lines 20 to 65 form a ring, in whose center the poet narrates
the invention of the lyre. In addition, there is a structural correspon-
dence (and homoeoteleuton) between 55–56 (- | π"() and
66–67 (s φ« | φ)(), which marks the beginning and end of
Hermes’ song.
63 φ% : ‘quickly’ (Radermacher ad loc.); cf. 52n.

¹)
- & λ )
%: see 21n.
64 φ!! !φ : The phorminx is particularly associated

with Apollo; cf. Il. 1.603, [Hes.] Sc. 202–203 ( & … φ* ),
h.Apol. 182–85 (φ & … φ* ), 515, Pi. P. 1.1, N. 5.24–25, fr.
280 Commentary
140a.61, E. Ion 164, Ar. Av. 216–19, Theoc. 7.100–101, Aristid. ¹

)* 4.31 = I 328 (Jebb).
Maas and Snyder (1989, 27) suggest that the instrument Hermes
creates is called φ* < or «, its proper Homeric names,
when associated with Apollo, and /)« or )1 ( when associated
with Hermes. (This distinction was already pointed out by Matthiae
288.) In their view, Hermes has at this point conceived of his plan to
steal Apollo’s cattle, hence it is called φ* < here (this plan is
implied already at 62 ξ φ !λ Ν)) ). In fact, the in-
strument’s nomenclature in h.Herm. is as follows: it is called )1 ( at
423 (played by Hermes); /)« at 153 and 242 (held by Hermes);
φ* < here and at 506 (where it is said that both Hermes and
Apollo rejoice in the phorminx); and « at 499, 509, and 515
(given to or played by Apollo). The proposed distinction thus seems
to hold for the most part, and the switch to « in the last section
of the poem conforms to several other changes observed at that point
(i.e. the omission to any reference to Hermes’ cave, to his swaddling-
clothes, or to Maia, and the abandonment of the comic tone present
throughout the rest of the poem; see p. 37–39). But allowance should
be made for some overlap in the terminology, as seems to have been
the case in archaic literature; besides, even though the poet calls the
instrument a )1 ( at 423, Hermes’ playing is termed &
(423, 425; cf. 17 &). See West (1992, 50–51) and Leduc
(2001, 30–31).
- &@% recurs only at Il. 11.551 and 17.660: in both
Iliadic instances of this formula, heroes are compared to a lion which,
desirous of meat, attacks cattle at night but is prevented by the cow-
herds and the dogs and has to retreat. Hermes will go unnoticed both
by the cowherd (Apollo) and by the dogs, but his attempt to consume
the meat will prove fruitless (cf. 132–33).
Later the infant god organizes a feast by the Alpheios in which he
serves meat; although Maia’s cave contains nectar and ambrosia (cf.
248), Hermes curiously craves meat. & may hint at
Hermes’ ‘identity crisis’ (he desires meat, which gods normally do not),
which is resolved only when he proves unable to consume his portion of
meat; see 132–33 and Clay Politics 122. Furley (1981, 48–50) plausibly
suggests that if Hermes had consumed any of the meat he carved up, he
would have been reduced to human status, just as conversely human
Lines 64–66 281
children can become immortal if they are fed on ambrosia (e.g. Demo-
phoon in h.Dem.).
Jaillard (2007, 105–106), however, does not think that
& diminishes Hermes’ status: gods rejoice with the smell of
roasted meat ( !(), !(«…$!« is used of Apollo at Il.
1.66–67, while Ar. Pl. 1120–23 presents Hermes explicitly referring to
meat that he had consumed; finally, gods were thought to attend
theoxenia or theodaisia festivals. However, the desire for !( is not
the same as the desire for meat, and after the Promethean arrange-
ment of the sacrifice at Mecone, gods remained content with the
smoke from the burned fat and bones. As for the theoxenia festiv-
als, the portions dedicated to the gods would be given to the priest
or burned, and thus they were not thought of as consumed by the
gods; cf. Ekroth (2002, 277). Besides, Hermes’ greed in the Plutos is a
comic joke that underlines the fact that gods do not really desire meat
like humans. Finally, Asclepiades of Cyprus, FGrH 752 F 1 shows
that the desire to consume the meat is a human reaction to the smell of
!(.
65 :6 « & ! : gods are often associated with pleasant

fragrance; cf. Il. 15.152–53, h.Dem. 277–78, Thgn. 8–10, [A.] Pr.
115–16, E. Hipp. 1391–94, Ar. Pax 524–25, Mosch. 2.91–92, Plu. 421b,
Ael. NA 12.30 (p. 307), V. A. 1.403–407, Ov. F. 5.375–76; Lohmeyer
(1919, esp. 4–14), Deonna (1939), Lilja (1972, 25–30), and Meloni
(1975, 12–14) on pleasant fragrance as a sign of epiphany.
66 ² % +4 & λ φ : in early epic the action of

² is usually localized in the φ « (Il. 10.4, 16.435, Od. 3.151
φ !; Od. 4.843 λ φ !; Il. 17.106 φ ), the *«
(Il. 14.20, 24.679 /$ *), or both (Il. 17.106 φ
λ *). Often the subject of ² is weighing two
alternative courses of action, typically introduced by two disjunctive
clauses (Il. 14.20–22, 16.435–38, 17.100–106, 21.60–65), and once with
² ) (Il. 22.130–31). Finally, ² may govern a direct ob-
ject as it does here, usually denoting something negative: *)
!1 (Il. 10.28, Od. 4.146), /) (Od. 3.151), φ* 1 (Od.
4.843, which our line resembles). At Pi. O. 13.84 (- λ ² μ«
² Q) B)) φ*«), Bacch. 13.105–109 (Ρ!’ [sc. Ajax] λ
282 Commentary
1) ![λ«] | 3!/ ! [² ]| [»«] |

!!) [ λ] | 6E /)[ ]) and fr. 20b.3 (²
) ² involves the idea of eagerness, which may be pres-
ent in our verse as well (cf. 62 ); see the discussion in Voigt
(1972, 13–17).
For the image of the plotting, sleepless Hermes, cf. Il. 24.679–81,
where the god searches for a way to escort Priam through the Greek
camp unnoticed, and μ« S(
at 15.
+' : on the meaning of 1« here, cf. LfgrE s.v. B I
2 a " (‘schwer zu durchschauen’). *) 1 is used again of Pan-
dora at Hes. Op. 83, in whose creation Hermes had a central role and
whom he brought to Epimetheus. Hermes’ tricks depend on the in-
ability of his victims to see through or perceive them (the Achaeans in
Il. 24.445 are put to sleep, Pandora has a deceitful appearance, and
the cows are led in such a way that the shape and direction of their
tracks confuse Apollo). Verdenius (1953) explains the metaphorical
use of 1« as deriving from the image of a rising wave (cf. Od.
5.366–67) and glosses ‘hard to ascend,’ ‘unapproachable,’ ‘relentless,’
‘irresistible’; he accordingly explains *) 1 here as ‘hard to re-
sist.’
At S. Ph. 133 Odysseus prays to Hermes :*)«.
U : ‘such as,’ the antecedent being 3 ; but it can also be
understood adverbially (‘just as’). For the here, expressing a fait per-
manent, i.e. that thieves typically plot such *), see Ruijgh, épique
§743; cf. 86n.
67 φ: is not found in Homer, but appears at Hes. Op. 375. The
manuscripts oscillate between φ)- and φ()-. The etymology is unclear:
it has been associated with φ()* and !φ)) (cf. Frisk, s.v. φ()*«),
but the literary papyri, FD III,1 486 (φ)«), Hsch. s.v. φ)7(« φ
481, the Suda s.v. φ)( φ 334, the EM (p. 139.49–50), and Epigr.Gr.
1108 (E
μ )( « Kφ)α μ« ² )(«, | χ«
φ)( c ) /# Ν [] φ ) have the spelling φ)-; Beekes s.vv.
φ()*«, φ)7(« thinks that the word may be of Pre-Greek origin. In an-
tiquity φ)7(« was also thought to derive from φ), and Hellanic.
FGrH 4 F 19b etymologized Hermes’ by-name φ)7(«: Ρ C
(sc.
Maia) φ)(![«] ! [»] (sc. Zeus); see Jacoby’s note ad loc.
The same spelling appears in Archil. 49.7 (φ)
g1 λ *)
Lines 66–67, 68–86 283
) ) ), but the meter does not allow any firm conclusions about
the quantity of φ)-; in the Hymn however it is clearly φ)-. Maas (1912,
1076), followed by Bechtel GD III 335–36 suggested that φ)- should be
retained on the ground that it is guaranteed by the most ancient wit-
nesses. For an overview of the etymologies proposed by ancient gram-
marians, see Egenolff (1902, 87–89).
« μ« & —9 : see p. 49. For the image of the thief roam-
ing at night, cf. Archil. 49.7 quoted above.
68–86 Hermes steals fifty of Apollo’s cows

In these verses Hermes accomplishes what was announced at 18
('! « "« )5 ' ("*) #A*))«). The poet does not
focus on the actual cattle-theft, which occupies a mere two lines
(73–74), but on the stratagem the inventive young god uses to confuse
his future tracker. This makes excellent sense given that Hermes is a
trickster figure; see p. 37–39. It is noteworthy that Hermes has a general
plan, namely to steal Apollo’s cattle and acquire divine honours
through exchange, but the difficulties it entails are dealt with on the
spot, as they arise, by means of an improvised inventiveness. Thus, he
constructs his wondrous sandals with material found in his immediate
environment.
Different versions of Hermes’ stratagem in stealing the cows appear
in later authors (see p. 80–81, 91–92, 101). In the Hymn Hermes makes
the cows walk backwards (77–78), following a wandering course on
sandy ground, so as to create many confusing footprints: this is the re-
flex of a folktale motif; cf. Thompson, Motif-Index K 534.3 (hero walk-
ing backwards to leave misleading trail). Then, he fashions a pair of
sandals by binding together branches of tamarisk and myrtle without
removing their foliage, which create tracks which puzzle Apollo
(222–26).
But Welcker (1857, I 340) understood the first part of Hermes’
stratagem to involve the magical exchange of the cows’ hooves (render-
ing ‘nachdem er ihnen die Vorderklauen hinten und die hinteren vorhin
gesetzt hat’, i.e. the cows continued walking forward but their tracks
appeared backwards); in a similar vein interpret the stratagem De-
tienne and Vernant (1978, 301–302). Cf. Koettgen (1914, 45–54), who,
implausibly in view of 209–11, renders F/’ $! 5« as ‘pedes
284 Commentary
retro flectens, retro torquens’ (p. 48). AHS ad loc., on the other hand,
cite modern parallels for stealing horses by reversing their shoes so that
they face the opposite direction; but reversing the horses’ shoes differs
from Hermes’ stratagem, and cows of course have no shoes.
Hermes’ cattle-theft story bears similarities with the story of Hera-
cles and Cacus (portrayed as a clever thief or a superhuman being, son of
Vulcan): Cacus leads the cattle Heracles has taken from Geryon back-
wards, while Heracles is asleep, just as Hermes steals Apollo’s cattle at
night and makes them walk backwards. See V. A. 8.190–267, Liv. 1.7, Ov.
F. 1.543–86, D.H. Ant. Rom. 1.39; shorter accounts in Ov. F. 5.643–52,
Prop. 4.9.1–20, Mart. 5.65; Orig. Gent. Rom. 6.2 (Cacus, Evandri servus,
nequitiae versutus et praeter cetera furacissimus, Tricarani hospitis boves
surripuit ac, ne quod esset indicium, cau<dis av>ersas in speluncam at-
traxit; this Tricaranus was a Graecae originis, ingentis corporis et mag-
narum virium pastor); see Davies (2006, 196) and Radermacher 192–93
for similar stories from other traditions. Sutton (1977) argues that the
Cacus story arrived at Rome through Pomponius’ Sisyphus, who is likely
to have drawn on Euripides’ homonymous satyr-play. The link is pro-
vided by the story transmitted by Probus (on V. G. 3.267f.) that Sisyphus
stole the mares of Diomedes from Heracles by driving them backwards.
This story was transferred to Cacus, passed into the annalistic tradition,
and was transmitted by the sources mentioned above.
Davies (2004), using the evidence for the representation of Cacus in
art and literature assembled in Small (1982), points out that Cacus is
sometimes represented as a captured seer or a death-demon. For the
first kind of representation, cf. LIMC s.v. Cacu nos. 1–6, where he is
depicted as an Apolline figure, a long-haired youth with a lyre. But in
some sources he is said to be a monstrous character dwelling in a cave
(it will be remembered that caves are often considered to be entrances to
the Underworld in mythology; cf. 6n.). Hermes’ story as presented in
the Hymn shares some motifs with the story of Cacus: (i) Hermes is
young and plays the lyre; (ii) he aspires to become a prophetic figure
(and is later given the Bee-oracle by Apollo); (iii) Apollo attempts to
capture him to obtain information about his stolen cattle; (iv) Hermes
is associated with the Underworld since he is born and dwells in a cave
and is appointed as the psychopomp (at 572–73); (v) the two characters
are ambivalent: Cacus can be a beautiful youth or a death spirit; simi-
larly, Hermes is capable of both helping and deceiving (cf. 577–78).
Lines 68–86 285
Larson (2005) detects similarities between h.Herm. (1–150) and

the Sumerian poems Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave and Lugalbanda
and the Imdugud Bird: both Hermes and Lugalbanda are the youngest
among their siblings and strive for recognition and honour; their adven-
tures begin from a cave; they travel and function as messengers of the
gods; they both kill animals, kindle fire in a pit, and prepare a meal for
the gods; in both stories there is a strong emphasis on precise chrono-
logy; and both characters have a secret which they use in a critical mo-
ment: Hermes has his lyre, while Lugalbanda has a gift granted by the
Anzu bird, to run anywhere he wishes without becoming tired. It is un-
clear, however, how the knowledge of the Lugalbanda poems reached
the Hermes poet, and it seems likely that, if indeed there is indeed a
relation between the two narratives, the Lugalbanda material had been
incorporated in the Hermes myth before the composition of h.Herm. so
that we cannot speak of a conscious adaptation of its motifs or themes.
Walcot (1979, esp. 343–46) and Haft (1996) compare Hermes’ cattle
theft in the Hymn to initiatory rites undergone by young men on the
verge of adulthood: to prove their manliness and be accepted into the
community of adult men, these youths had to steal animals belonging
to neighboring people. Though Hermes’ status changes over the course
of the poem, the analogy with such ‘rites of passage’ should not be
pressed too far, since Hermes is accepted into a divine group that con-
sists of both male and female characters and to which there is no formal
initiatory process. The emphasis in Hermes’ exploits lies not in the
manliness or the heroic qualities required, but on metis.
In addition, there are some important differences between Hermes’
cattle-theft and animal raids in modern Crete as cited in the aforemen-
tioned studies. In Crete the thief is obliged to return the stolen animals;
Hermes, however, exchanges the lyre for the stolen cattle and keeps
them. The Cretan cattle-thieves use the pretext of hunger for their
thefts (Haft [1993, 28]). The Hymn’s & (64, 287) is not
Hermes’ excuse but the motive the poet and Apollo attribute to him,
a motive that furthermore aims at challenging the young god’s divine
status. Hermes does not steal Apollo’s cattle in order to establish a
friendly relationship with him (which is the reason the Cretan cattle-
raiders evoke when stealing animals; cf. Haft [1993, 27]), but to acquire
a rank similar to Apollo’s (cf. 172–73). In fact, there seems to be
(at least initially) a strong competition between Hermes and Apollo
286 Commentary
(cf. 176–81), and it is through the power of Hermes’ music and song (and
Zeus’s injunction at 391) that Apollo’s anger is softened. Nor is Hermes
initiated into animal-theft by someone older, as typically happens in
Crete (cf. Haft [1993, 31]), but he conceives of his plan alone.
Thus, although individual motifs of the cattle raiding myth may be
identified in the Hymn (no doubt, part of the Indo-European heritage;
cf. West [2007, 451–52]), these motifs are combined with other themes
(e.g., the power of music, divine comedy, precocious childhood etc.)
that preclude our viewing the Hymn as a straight-forward initiation
cattle-raiding story. See also p. 150–52 above.
For the representation of the cattle-stealing Hermes in art, see p. 147
and Yalouris (1953–54).
68–69 #H « ξ … λ Ϊ : the expression for the setting of the
sun is unhomeric, although parts of it have early epic parallels (see for-
mulaic apparatus). For the image of the Sun’s light falling into the
Ocean, cf. Il. 8.485 ’ 3!’ # ) ) μ φ« ); see
A. W. Jones (1978) for Homeric expressions for the Sun’s rising and set-
ting. The Homeric phrases typically use the aorist, whereas the Hymn
has the imperfect, indicating that the night has not yet fully arrived;
after all, Hermes stole Apollo’s cattle '! « (18).
The Sun’s chariot (and horses) is an image not attested in Homer,
but it features in poetry already in archaic times: cf. h.Hom. 28.13–15,
31.14–16, Mimn. 12, Pi. O. 7.70–71, Bacch. 11.101, A. fr. 192.5–8, S. Aj.
845–47, E. El. 464–66, IA 156–59, Ion 82–83, 1148–49, Phaëth. 2–3,
A.R. 3.309. For mythological and artistic references to the Sun’s char-
iot (an Indo-European mythological motif) and his journey around
Oceanus, see Richardson on h.Dem. 63, A. Allen (1993, 97–98) on
Mimn. 12 with references to parallels for the motif of the voyaging Sun-
god, LIMC, s.v. Helios (addenda) 1–123 (Helios’ horses sometimes ap-
pear winged, e.g. at nos. 14, 96, 97), and West (2007, 203–207).
69 :3 Ν’: for C Ν () answering , cf. Il. 2.102–103.
70 P«: Why is Hermes going to Pieria? The obvious answer is that

Pieria is at the foot of Mt. Olympus, which is Hermes’ ultimate goal.
Pieria is also the first stop on Apollo’s quest for an oracle (cf. h.Apol.
216): Apollo descends from Olympus and arrives at Pieria, while
Lines 68–71 287
Hermes’ arrival at Pieria (and the subsequent cattle-theft) is instrumen-

tal to his ascent to Olympus; for possible correspondences with h.Apol.,
see p. 70–73. Shelmerdine ad loc. detects a connection with music, since
Pieria was the birthplace of the Muses (Hes. Th. 53), who are often
called P «. This is plausible in view of the importance of music in
settling the dispute between the two gods. Note, finally, that the de-
scription of the mountains of Pieria occupies the poet much less com-
pared to the description of Cyllene at 227–32 (marked with the similar
beginning K))7(« ’ $φ [sc. #A*))] R «).
$φ : the imperfects in this section (until 82) do not simply in-
dicate detailed description (cf. Goodwin, GMT § 56); they provide ma-
terial that is narrated not for its own sake but because it leads to and
supports the main focus of this narrative segment, i.e. Hermes’ strata-
gem to confuse Apollo by making the wondrous sandals (79, 83) on
whose footprints Apollo will later remark (222–26). For this use of the
imperfect, see Sicking and Stork (1996, esp. 83–102).
"% : once again Hermes’ swiftness is emphasized; cf. φ (63)
and Θ) (65). (M, p, x) is influenced by the following line.
2 : i.e. ‘thickly wooded’ (LSJ s.v. ! *« I 1), not
‘overshadowing’ as in φ ! *.
71 This is the only place where we hear that the gods kept their cattle in
Pieria. Elsewhere we hear that Helios owned cattle (cf. the passages
cited below on Ν" ). The poet later focuses on Apollo’s cattle
without explaining why Hermes stole Apollo’s cows in particular or
how Hermes distinguished them from the other gods’ animals.
<« … σ 05 : for bovines in the Homeric age, see Körner
(1930, 39–44) and Richter (1968, 44–53).
Ν< : ‘divine,’ not ‘immortal.’ Unlike Achilles’ horses that are
immortal (Il. 16.381 and 867), Apollo’s cattle are mortal: Hermes kills
two of the animals at 118–20. Ν" « is used of things belonging
to or deriving from the gods (except Od. 11.330 where it modifies 1<);
cf. Herter (1981, 188). Gemoll 204, taking the adjective to mean ‘im-
mortal,’ detected an inconsistency here, since Hermes kills later two of
the cows, while AS thought that such an inconsistency was unproblem-
atic given the Hymn’s style.
The notion of the immortality of the cattle is superimposed from
the story of the ‘Cattle of the Sun’ in the Odyssey, where the Sun’s
288 Commentary
cattle indeed neither multiply nor die; cf. Od. 12.130–31, 395–96.
Kahn’s (1978, 47) suggestion that Apollo’s cattle are immortal at Pie-
ria and have a fixed number, but in the end they become a “troupeau
humanisé” (a ‘humanized,’ i.e. mortal herd), able to reproduce, which
also implies their mortality, is not supported by the text. We are
nowhere told that the number of Apollo’s cows was fixed, and they
were certainly more than fifty (cf. 193–96). Nor can it be argued
that the animals did not reproduce, since (contrary to the Odyssean
story) there was a bull in the herd. The narrative of the cattle of the Sun
must have been known to the audience, but the poet tells a different
story here, perhaps playing again with audience expectations: Apollo’s
cattle will not be like Helios’. Finally, in h.Herm. Apollo is not ident-
ified with Helios, and the two gods are explicitly distinguished at
381–82. Pace Buffière (1956, 187–95, esp. 189–90), who detects refer-
ences to Apollo-Sun in h.Apol. 202–203 and 441 as well as in A. Th.
859 and Supp. 213–14, the earliest certain reference to Apollo as Sun is
E. Phaëth. 225 (see Diggle ad loc. and Shelmerdine [1986, 58 n. 33]).
72 < : cf. 27n. "*! ! may also be construed with a
locative dative (cf. Il. 16.151, Od. 21.49) instead of the accusative as
here and at A. Ag. 119, Arist. HA 591a16. "! * at 72 indicates
that the gods’ "*« are cows, and Apollo’s words at 193 (² ξ «
"*! « $# Ν))) make clear that the bull was not with the
$)(. It seems that the gods are following the same rules of animal
breeding as men do, i.e. that the bulls are only allowed in the herd for a
specific period of time; see 193n.
- « $ « & '«. $ ( !« and *« do
not typically describe a meadow; $*« (Il. 2.467, Od. 12.159),
) *« (198, Od. 5.72, Hes. Th. 279, h.Dem. 7, h.Hom. 19.25), and
¹ *« (h.Dem. 417) are used instead. $ ( !« is a Homeric hapax
(Od. 9.205 of pure, undiluted wine). *« sometimes describes
places (e.g., Il. 2.532, 5.210, 14.226, Od. 7.79, [Hes.] fr. 33a.5(?), h.Apol.
179, 422), though never a )@.
73 - : Agar’s (1921, 94) emendation « (*), on the grounds that

would be the proper form of the genitive here, and because
Hermes stole all of Apollo’s animals, should not be admitted. Both of
Agar’s assertions are problematic: can function as a feminine geni-
Lines 71–74 289
tive plural (cf. Hes. Th. 39 and 910), while « * does not convey that
Hermes stole all of Apollo’s cows any more than * (which dep-
ends on $)(«).
Note the repetition of * at 82.
The emphatic combination of M « ¹« and &' « #A-
!φ « is unique to this Hymn.
&' «: this epithet for Hermes is formulaic (Il. 24.24, 24.109,
Od. 1.38, 7.137; h.Apol. 200, h.Aphr. 262; but at Od. 11.198 it describes
Artemis), and its use here is motivated by the context: cf. 65 Θ)
! 7 and 392n.
#A!φ «: cf. 84, 294, 387, 414. This compound may have
originally meant ‘serpent-slayer’; cf. Paus.Gr. 143 $ φ*(«· ²
Sφ *«. $
3 μ Rφ )!; Watkins (1995,
383–85). West (1978, 368–69) agrees with Chittenden (1948) and Car-
penter (1950) that the meaning is ‘dog-slayer’; as the god of thieves,
Hermes is associated with eliminating the danger that guard-dogs pres-
ent for thieves; cf. Hippon. 3a ( /), 79.9–11 and Ant. Lib. 23.2.
The main objection to the usual rendering ‘Slayer of Argos’ is that a
god’s typical by-name should refer to a regular activity and not a
unique event. In addition, it is difficult to explain how *A - yields
*A -. For earlier attempts to explain #A φ*(«, see Østergaard
(1902), Kretschmer (1919–20, esp. 45–49), Heubeck (1954, 25: ‘some-
one characterized by Ν «, i.e. radiant speed’; cf. Dürbeck [1977, 87]),
and Faulkner on h.Aphr. 117.
Be that as it may, #A φ*(« is used here with a hint of irony, as
Shelmerdine ad loc. suggests: the only creature that Hermes has killed
up to this point is a tortoise. The poet may also aim at linking the
abduction of Apollo’s cattle with the story of Io, which involves a cow
as well. Alternatively, if #A φ*(« is taken to mean ‘Slayer of
Argos,’ it can be understood as ‘proleptic,’ referring to an action
Hermes will accomplish in the future, outside of the hymn’s temporal
frame; see Càssola 160–61 and Greene (2005, 348 with n. 23). For the
Hymn’s formulaic system for Hermes, see van Nortwick (1975, 22–38).
74 (): 437 (7 " $< ()«)

shows that fifty is not a generic number for ‘many,’ as it may be at Il.
11.678 7 " $)«. Helios’ herds and flocks also con-
sisted of 50 animals each (Od. 12.130).
290 Commentary
$ : cf. Il. 18.528 (# $φλ " $)« λ

@ ), i.e. they cut them off or surrounded them) and LSJ, s.v.
$ II 2 ‘cut off with a view to appropriating’ (often referring to
land): Hdt. 1.82.2, Isoc. 8.24, A.R. 2.794, Theoc. 17.86 (with Rossi ad
loc.), D.S. 19.94.1 (! « " " « Νφ λ κ )
»! $!), D.H. Ant.Rom. 1.13.3, 8.11.2 ())κ $-
! )), Plu. Cim. 14.3, Mor. 267c, Str. 13.1.59 (611.15 C.), 13.4.6
(627.11 C.), Paus. 1.44.1, 3.2.3, 3.7.3, 8.35.4 etc.
75 * «: ‘on a wandering course’ or ‘on deceiving paths’. It

is unclear whether )« is intended as a noun (construed as
the object of -)) or an adjective (modifying the understood "«);
cf. LfgrE s.v. Koettgen (1914, 49 n. 87) connects it to )» and sug-
gests that )« means “aberrationem quandam a recta via … id
est deverticula, tramites secretos et occultos, per quos fures effugere
solent.”
On the lengthening of )-, cf. 44 and Chantraine, GH I 97–99
(§ 43–44). A derivation from )»! ‘to wander’ is likely, although
the (unhomeric) )» ‘to deceive, lead astray’ also deserves con-
sideration. Càssola’s “con una strana andatura” (‘with a strange gait’)
is imprecise. At any rate, it is interesting that a god who was worshipped
as *« leads the cattle )«.
West prints Schneider’s )(« (also argued for by F. D. Allen
1893, who rendered ‘out of the road’), which he translates ‘by offroad
ways.’ )(« must belong to the legal terminology, as its only at-
testation in Hesych. 2572 )() · *) · (9(· 9

)(9 (
« S
« ², ! $ ) shows. Schulze QE
174 rightly dismissed it as irrelevant.
3 B"6 5- : 5@(« does not occur in Homer or
Hesiod (but cf. 5« at Il. 1.486, and )!!@(« at Il. 13.53 for the
adjectival suffix); it is subsequently found at A.R. 4.1376, Opp. C. 2.255,
[Orph.] A. 633 etc. For the clausula, cf. 347, 350, Q.S. 7.116 λ
5@= /@ ) .
76 ;5 (): F/’ is Hermann’s emendation of the MSS F/(, adopted by

Càssola and West. Elsewhere in the Hymn we find F/ (cf. Il. 13.71*,
18.321, 23.764*, Od. 2.406 = 3.30 = 5.193 = 7.38; at Od. 19.436 some
MSS have F/(, and one [O] offers F/#); F/( would be an Atticism.
Lines 74–78 291
Attic and non-Attic forms coexist elsewhere in the Hymn; cf. R at 70

vs. R ( in 95, both forms guaranteed by the meter (unless we read R
in 95).
$ B« is explained by the following $ 7!«.
« ’ : " 5 «: = Hes. Th. 547 of Prometheus; cf. Od.
4.455 C’ ² )(« )7 /(« and Hes. Th. 560 C
Ν )(« )7 /(«; all these occurrences involve change
of appearance and/or deception. For the implicit comparison of
Hermes to Prometheus through formulaic material, see p. 54, 68–69.
The whole phrase is the poet’s parenthetical comment; cf. Agar (1916,
65). The train of thought, interrupted at F/’ $! 5«, is resumed
at 77–78 $ 7!« ).
77–78 $ « ²«, 3« " 2" , | 3« ’ 2"

" : ‘having made the hooves (i.e. the cattle’s tracks) face in
the opposite direction, the front ones backwards and the back ones
forward.’ Baumeister considered these verses unworthy of even a
prose author because of the combination *! R!…R
*!, and Humbert and Richardson prefer @« (M) for
*! at 78 (a reading not mentioned by Càssola in either his
apparatus or the notes) on the grounds that it adds variation and could
easily have been replaced by *!; *!, however, brings out
the chiasmus in these lines more clearly. *! R! … R
*! has a proverbial ring (cf. 319 C λ )1(« Ω
)7/ i ); for the chiasmus, cf. 193–96.
In the Hymn Hermes makes the cattle walk backwards. Sophocles
represents Hermes’ trick differently in the Ichneutai 121–22 (« C!
*! -)) , ’ σ | ’ $))7)! ![)]),
which implies that the cows’ tracks are interlaced, facing in opposite
directions to each other; cf. Pearson (1917, I 243) and above, p. 80–81,
285–86. Detienne and Vernant (1978, 301–302), reading the Sophoclean
version in this passage of h.Herm., detect two stages in Hermes’ strat-
agem: at v. 76ff. the cattle move forward, their tracks having been magi-
cally reversed, while Hermes walks backwards; at 210–11 the cattle is
said to walk backwards, whereas Hermes “adopts a ‘twisted’ gait” (as
they interpret ! φ( of 210; but see n. ad loc.): his head is
turned towards the cattle, but his feet point to the opposite direction (i.e.
the same direction as the cows’ tracks). But none of this is the case in
292 Commentary
h.Herm.: all the cattle tracks that Apollo observes throughout the poem
lead back to the asphodel meadow; besides, “putting the front hoof-
marks at the back and the back ones at the front” (Detienne and Vernant
p. 301) would not turn the cattle’s imprints round and reverse their
tracks, since they would still point to the same direction (i.e. away from
the asphodel meadow). For parallels for Hermes’ trick from other cul-
tures, see Radermacher 192–93.
78 3 ’ 0 :μ« 0< : ‘and he was walking in the opposite

way,’ i.e. facing the cows. LSJ (RevSuppl.) s.v. ) gloss ‘back-
wards’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. 3)), but such a meaning is improbable here
since at 211 the Old Man describes the cows as facing Hermes.
79 # :’ 0B : this is one of the earliest occurrences of

!) (but cf. !") in Sappho 110.2; Eumel. PMG 696.2); sub-
sequently in Crates Com. 17.7, Eup. 312, Theoc. 24.36. Early epic has
) (e.g., Il. 2.44 = 10.22 = 10.132 = 14.186 ≈ 24.340, Od. 1.96,
14.23, 16.154, Hes. Th. 12, Op. 541, [Hes.] Sc. 220) or K7 (Od.
15.369 ≈ 18.361). AHS call these sandals ‘skis.’
The transmitted !) # C # 3 5 raises two questions: (i)
the poet has nowhere mentioned the sandals Hermes is now supposed
to throw on the sand. Though the poet elsewhere introduces objects not
mentioned earlier (e.g., )1φ 41, / « S 51, )
53),
it is curious that Apollo, who follows the cows’ tracks at least up to On-
chestos, does not notice these sandals. (ii) Line 80 (as is commonly
printed) follows in asyndeton. To be sure, asyndeton is not unparalleled
in the poem (cf. p. 48), but in this case it would be particularly harsh.
Gemoll adopted Matthiae’s 3 5 and bracketed 80, while most
editors print Postgate’s emendation (C W5), with the exception
of Ludwich, Radermacher, and Humbert, who retain 3 5. I believe
that Matthiae’s 3 5 is the best solution here and take 80 to be pa-
renthetic, an aside of the poet who comments admiringly on Hermes’
metis; cf. 76 )(« # C )7 /(« and 117 1« ¹ 3)
))7. The transmitted 3 5 may have been influenced by 139
(!) ξ ( ); and lines 79–82 (with 3 5) may have
been imitated by Eratosthenes, as I argue on p. 91–92. Finally, sandals
made of W« (‘wicker-work,’ ‘mat’) would not cause monstrous tracks
as those on which Apollo remarks at 219–26.
Lines 78–81 293
Càssola (who adopts W5) refers to 273, where Hermes claims in

his defense that his feet are soft and he would not be able to walk on the
hard ground, which implies, Càssola argues, that the young god norm-
ally walked barefoot. However, Hermes’ argument should not be taken
as ‘gospel’: in the same speech (277) he also claims that he has only
heard of cows, but not seen them, which is a lie.
80 Νφ’ ’ $ : Νφ !« (‘unutterable’ and here even ‘mar-

vellous’ LSJ s.v.) does not occur in Homer, but cf. 353 (where Νφ !«
is also preceded by a reference to 5«), [Hes.] fr. 239.4, Hdt. 5.92
1 (‘not to be guessed’), A. Supp. 95, S. Tr. 694, 1057.
$ « (‘unthought-of,’ ‘unperceivable’) occurs only here in early
Epic. For the combination of two compound adjectives with privative
$-, cf. 168, Il. 9.158 ($)/« # $!«), 13.360 (Ν ( *
# Ν)* ), Od. 1.242 (Ν!« Ν!«), 5.456 (Ν!« λ
Ν«), 8.274–75 (!L« | $ 7 « $)1«), 10.463 ($! )«
λ Ν), Hes. Th. 489 ($ (« λ $ (7«), 797 ($!«
λ Ν«), h.Dem. 200 ($)!« Ν!«), S. Tr. 693–94 (φ |
Νφ !, $<1")( $ @) ), El. 1262–63 ($φ !« |
$)« #), Lyc. Alex. 140 (Ν! $@ (), Fehling (1969, 235–41),
Fraenkel on A. Ag. 412, and Richardson on h.Dem. 200.
: is found subsequently (in a metaphorical sense) at Pi.
P. 2.82 (Ν), 12.8 (
).
"3 0!: along with Νφ !’ ’ $*(, this expresses the
poet’s admiration for his hero’s achievements.
81 «: tamarisk (tamaris hampeana), growing by the sea-shore,

and sacred to Aphrodite; cf. Billerbeck (1972, 83–84), Polunin (1980,
343 nos. 806a–c), Baumann (2007, 39, 41 with image 61). Ael. NA 14.24
speaks of κ 3) (.
« is here equivalent to !« (cf. Stesich. 187.2),
and is formed by analogy to 7«; for the internal hiatus, see Bader
(1965, 148–49) §122. !7« is subsequently found exclusively in
medical writers, where it refers to a )(« ‘vine branch’ (Dsc. 4.7,
Gal. XII 31) or a type of incision used in surgery (Orib. Ecl. 97.33, Aët.
15.7).
The myrtle-tree (myrtus communis), !( ( (), was sacred
to Aphrodite. But Paus. 1.27.1 mentions a statue of Hermes in the
294 Commentary
temple of Athena Polias Kμ ) !(« C !1; in Crete

Hermes had the cult-title K «, which may suggest an association
with the cornel-tree (but cf. 460, where Apollo carries the cornel-tree
staff); and an inscription from Lesbos mentions a statue of Hermes in a
vineyard (Epigr.Gr. 812 = IG XII, 2 476, 3rd c. BC: Z(μ« λ M«
« $)μ E
[] | C [!]
[!] []*[] [ ]λ
φ)(« | B / Z« ¹[*«, Ρ[« W]κ μ« | Ν)«
³ μ 3/9 ( " 1. | $))# b)«, Ν<, Z« « Κφ-
) | !)& L« C« Νφ R)" $); all these point to
Hermes as a god of vegetation and fertility; see Farnell, Cults V 11, 64.
Like the tamarisk, the myrtle grows by the sea; cf. V. G. 2.112, Ov.
Am. 1.1.29. The myrtle was used in medicine against diseases of the
bladder and as antidote to the bites of spiders and scorpions; the juice
of its berries, mixed with wine, was used as a purgative; cf. Dsc. quoted
above, Billerbeck (1972, 122–23), Polunin (1980, 346 no. 824), Bau-
mann (2007, 39) with image 58.
82–86 ‘Having then bound together an armful of fresh-sprouting wood

from these [i.e. myrtle and tamarisk], he securely fastened under his feet
the light sandals, foliage and all, which he, the honorable Slayer of
Argos, had plucked, to conceal his journey from Pieria, improvising
since he was hastening [to accomplish] his long journey.’
82 «: cf. 81 !!. There is a chiastic arrangement of

sounds at 81–82: !! « λ !« R&«. |
* !7!«, followed by the alliterative ()« Ν ) 8)(« |
$")"«, which may have an incantatory effect: Hermes is creating at
this point the wondrous sandals that will cause amazement to Apollo
(cf. esp. 346–49); cf. Richardson on h.Dem. 228–30 and 238.
" « Ν!
«: Ν )« does not occur in archaic epic;
but cf. Il. 18.555, 22.503 ( $ )!!). It denotes here quantity
(‘an armful’), something normally expressed by $ )«; cf. Ar.
fr. 432 $ )« <1), Plu. Rom. 8.7, Cat. Mi. 46.5, Apoll.Soph. s.v.
$ & (p. 5.11–12 Bekker) λ μ φ <1) $ )λ«
) κ π !7, Hsch. 533 $ )«· Ν/«,
and Preisigke, s.v. $ )(/$ )«.
I adopt AS’s text (= ). M’s () $ ) 7 led AHS to
propose () $ )) — (, but their parallels for both — (
Lines 81–83 295
and () are problematic: at X. HG 2.1.1 ($*

« — « -
φ) — means ‘the fruits/produce of the season’; at E. Ph. 786 (C
λ ))/* « !φ! « — «) it means ‘youth’ (cf. Mas-
tronarde ad loc.); and AHS themselves are not sure of the value of
A. Eu. 109 as a parallel. At A. fr. 44.6 — (if the correct reading; cf.
Radt’s apparatus, who prints S@ ) must also mean ‘fruits.’ As for
the metaplasm from 3rd to 1st declension of ()7«, AHS’s parallels
are either late (Galen XIX 121 ) for );3 they might have
cited ) at Hp. Epid. 5.99 [V 246], 7.30 [V 400]) or not helpful: at
A. Eu. 453 (450 in West’s Teubner) () is itself an emendation (by
Turnebus) for M’s <! () [sic] " – and a bad one,
since it introduces a novelty into the text – which was changed into
<>()<«> already by Abresch (1832, II 309).
Radermacher (1933) suggested ()’ $’ Ν ) — («
(“er band von deren Schönheit je einen frischgesproßten Armvoll zu-
sammen,” ‘he bound together a handful of the freshly sprouted beauty
of each of them’), but such a transferred epithet is unparalleled in the
Hymn. Shelmerdine prints () Ν )« 8)( on p. 112 (but on
113 she has $ 1)«), i.e. ‘Hermes craftily binds together the fresh
wood of the tamarisk and myrtle so that the leaves form part of the
sandals,’ assuming that C! )! “refers to the sandals
themselves rather than the attached ‘bundle’.” However, the !)
φ are not already woven sandals, to which the divine babe attaches
wood, but Hermes’ bricolage. C! )! is in emphatic, en-
jambed position, and serves two purposes: it manifests Hermes’ haste
and explains the strange tracks created by these sandals.
83 $<<%«: ‘securely,’ (i) so that the sandals do not come undone,

and (ii) because they produce tracks that confuse Hermes’ tracker; the
adverb is subsequently found at Thgn. 1154, Th. 5.47.8. $")"7«
occurs at Pi. O. 13.27, P. 8.54, while $")"( appears in 393 (see n. ad
loc.). Càssola’s ‘abilmente’ (ably, skillfully) is imprecise.
$")"« has been unjustifiedly doubted. Pierson (1752, 117) pro-
posed ")1«; but this would mean ‘without "), i.e. without
3 This parallel is misleading. Galen’s entry makes it clear that already in antiquity )«
was contested: ): μ ) ! ) · ξ« ξ Kφ# ‘ $@! !, b#
_ μ )· 3 ξ !, /) μ ν ) μ $λ R.
9
296 Commentary
slippers’ which is elsewhere used of women (Opp. C. 4.369, Phil.Jun.

Imag. 5, II p. 399 Kayser). Schneidewin (1860, 666) conjectured
C)"«, his idea being that Hermes tied the sandals carefully to his
feet so as to avoid any injuries from the twigs from which they were
made. But if Hermes’ concern had been not to injure his feet, the poet
would have provided him with a better type of footwear to protect him
already during the first half of his journey. Headlam (1908, 2), finally,
suggested the possibility of reading $")« here; cf. Hsch. 131
$")«· π« and " 655 ")· «, the point being that
Hermes gladly or quickly put on these sandals.
83–84 Dμ λ & φ | : ) : cf.

Il. 24.340–41, Od. 5.44–45 (C ’ 3’) Kμ !!λ 7! )
) | $" *! / 1!, where Hermes puts on his sandals before
embarking on a mission. We may have a parodistic reminiscence here:
the poet replaces (i) the standard epic ) ) with !) (cf.
79n.) and (ii) the enjambed $" *! / 1! with C! -
)! (i.e. a lower kind of material); note, finally, that both enjambed
clauses are followed by a relative. See p. 31–32.
φ: contrary to the Homeric passages quoted above
in which Hermes wears his sandals, the god does not fly here but walks
with his ‘light’ or ‘nimble’ sandals. Poll. 7.86 refers to a type of shoe
worn by old men, the «, which had a φ (‘light
sole’).
85 ' « #A!φ «: this clausula occurs only here; in archaic

epic #A φó(« is typically accompanied by / !* «, 1«,
«, 1! «, or )*«; see 73n.
² $ % : ‘attempting to conceal his walking/journey’;
cf. van Herwerden (1876, 69–70) and (1888, 74) who renders “iter cel-
ans, abscondens”, on the basis of Hsch. 2812 $)&α 1.
$) ‘hide’ recurs at 237; contra Gigliotti (1991, 60). AS/AHS
assumed that Hermes intended to avoid the toil of wayfaring, implying
that the sandals would help him walk more easily (but how did he run to
Pieria in the first place? Cf. 70).Others, however, render ‘avoiding the
regular road/highway’; cf. Hdt. 8.118, McDaniel (1900, 79), Rader-
macher and Shelmerdine ad loc., and Clay Politics 113. The latter inter-
pretation may gain some support from )« (see 75n.), although
Lines 83–86, 87–93 297
the singular ² ( is awkward. There is no need for Windisch’s

(1867, 41) $)1 ‘preparing’ (cf. 361n.).
² ( is one of the many ‘new’ abstracts in the Hymn; cf.
Hoekstra (1969, 12 with 19 n. 44).
86 U ’ &! «: s () has causal sense; see Ruijgh, épique

§433. The participial phrase explains C 7!«.
5κ ² : In the Iliad )/*« exclusively describes spears:
4.533, 7.255, 9.86 ()/# 3/; cf. Hes. Th. 186) 13.162, 15.474, 17.607
()/μ * ).
*: «: this participle presupposes an otherwise unat-
tested *C . By analogy with $)) (Hp. Int. 37 [VII
258] ‘change colour,’ lit. ‘turn/become $))«’) and (Hp.
Mul. 38 [VIII 94] ‘become malignant’, lit. ‘turn/become *«’), the
verb should mean ‘become C*«, i.e. oneself’, hence perhaps ‘resort to
one’s own powers,’ ‘improvise.’ LSJ s.v. ‘be like oneself, i.e. unique’ is
not to the point, because - implies change, not a state of being.
Cf. Kahn (1978, 45), who renders “avec de moyens tout personels.”
87–93 Hermes at Onchestos

Hermes arrives at Onchestos in Boeotia and addresses an old man who
is working in his vineyard. He asks him not to reveal anything of what
he sees, since he intends no harm to him. There are several problems
with this short speech:
(i) The question of the lacuna between 91 and 92:

The transition between 90–91 and 92–93 is certainly abrupt, and most
editors since Groddeck (1786, 86) posit a lacuna between 91 and 92
(“intercidisse nonnulla probabile fit, nisi vultum Dei corporisque ges-
tum sermonis nimiam brevitatem hoc loco, ut in aliis antiquorum car-
minum pluribus, compensavisse, tibi persuadeas”). Along similar lines,
Schopen, Diorthoticon in varios scriptores I 1846 p. 4 proposed that line
93 is the conflation of two verses, the first beginning with λ !» Ρ
and the second ending with 7 ")9 ( μ !μ C. Grod-
deck’s idea was accepted by Baumeister who supplied the following
paraphrase of the missing words (on p. 203) “si quando de bobus
interrogatus fueris, num quem eos abigentem conspexeris …”
298 Commentary
Supplements have been suggested for the lacuna established by

Groddeck, e.g. Agar (1916): φ & λ
! φ
« p
)) | κ ) $!! λ φ !λ 7!«; or Evelyn-
White (1914b): F 9 (, ) (« φ !λ !9
!, com-
mended by AHS because it provides a main verb for the infinitives in 92
and 93 (but these infinitives are imperatival; see 92n.). West believes the
sense of the missing line to be “(you will have a great vintage) [provided
you do as I say: keep your own counsel …”]
The underlying assumption in all these supplements is that Hermes
must be warning the Old Man here as he does in other versions of the
story ([Hes.] fr. 256, Ant.Lib. 23, Ov. Met. 2.680–707) and that he prom-
ises him a good vintage in exchange for his silence. In those other ver-
sions, however, the informant has a name, Battus, and is bribed by
Hermes who returns later to test his veracity. All this is missing from
our poem, as Hermes completely forgets the Old Man. Battus and the
Old Man should rather be treated as two distinct characters, each hav-
ing a different function in the story in which he appears (though this
does not preclude that the Hermes poet may have drawn on the story of
Battus; see below): the speechless Old Man proves later during his meet-
ing with Apollo to be simply an idle talker; Battus, on the other hand, is
an oath-breaker, tested by Hermes who has to assume a different guise,
and is bent on profit; cf. Holland (1926, 179) and Radermacher 193–94,
who, while acknowledging the similarity between the two characters,
thought that we should not build too much on it and tentatively sug-
gested that elements of the Hymn had influenced the Battus story.
It is possible that Battus’ story may have been known to some
extent in archaic times (cf. [Hes.] fr. 256). Kahn (1978, 47) observes that
Battus’ petrification fits well with Hermes’ words at lines 92–93: a rock
neither sees nor hears nor speaks; cf. also Steiner (1995, esp. 210–11). If
this is the case, the audience might have expected that the Hymn poet
would narrate Battus’ story here. But instead he chose to tell a story
that, while reminiscent of Battus’ tale in general terms, is rather differ-
ent in its details. Thus the poet once again exploits audience expec-
tations (cf. 13–15n.). In this way a local aition (how a location in the
Peloponnese, B ! , received its name), centering on the Old
Man’s punishment and subsequent metamorphosis, is transformed into
a story that would appeal to a broader (Pan-Hellenic) audience than
just the locals who were familiar with the place-name.
Lines 87–93 299
But what is the point of Hermes’ words to the Old Man? These
verses confirm the multivalence of Hermes’ speech (see p. 15–25). I
adopt 1) ») at 90 and agree with Clay Politics 115 that
Hermes may be mocking the slow-witted Old Man; but I do not think it
necessary to emend 90 Ρ« to —! as Clay does. These lines can be
taken to mean that the Old Man is toiling in vain (‘you dig these curved
logs as if they were plants’), unable to realize that the vines he is digging
are worthless. To this pointless work, Hermes reacts ironically (‘you will
indeed have lots of wine when these bear fruit, i.e. never!’; see also n. on
)7!« below). Just as the Old Man is blind in that he does not
realize the vanity of his toil (90–91), he is asked to be blind, deaf, and
mute in respect to Hermes’ arrival that he has just witnessed (92–93
with n.).
However, if the audience knew the Battos story, then they would
conceivably understand Hermes’ words to the Old Man as a form of
threat (i.e. ‘do not reveal what you just saw, otherwise you will harm
your own interest’). In this case they would be surprised to find out that
nothing happens to the Old Man even though he informs Apollo. At
the same time, Hermes’ words could be initially interpreted as a state-
ment of fact: ‘you hoe these curved logs now (and vines do look like
curved logs), but later you will obtain much wine.’ But the adaptation
of the proverbial phrase in lines 92–93 would throw also these members
of the audience into confusion.
Put another way, just as in his first speech to the tortoise, Hermes’
address to the Old Man is characterized by a confusing, opaque lan-
guage and the adaptation of proverbial wisdom. And if we add that
these words are uttered by an infant dressed in swaddling-clothes and
leading fifty backwards walking cows, then we should not wonder that
the Old Man is left speechless. Thus despite the apparent abruptness,
no lacuna needs be assumed here: Hermes’ discourse is character-
istically ‘hermetic,’ as Zanetto (1996, 264) observes; cf. also Stoddard
(2004, 87) who points out that gods are usually represented as speaking
riddlingly to men for “the distance between them is commonly por-
trayed as being too great for un-mediated contact.”
(ii) The Old Man as a Helper-Figure:

Davies (2006) compares the Old Man to helper-figures, which a hero
commonly encounters at an early stage of his quest when he must fight
300 Commentary
with the god of the dead or a death-demon, or when he is ordered to re-

cover stolen cattle that symbolize human souls (e.g., Heracles and the
cattle of Geryon; this possibility was already suggested by Kuiper
[1910, 34–36] who saw in 221 $!φ)μ ) a reference to the
kingdom of the dead). Cf. the story of Admetus’ cattle which Apollo
had to tend while in servitude (Admetus originally signified the “invin-
cible one, a form of Hades …”, Davies [2006, 197–98 with n. 31]; also
Sowa [1984, 264]). The Old Man is an ambivalent helper, since he re-
veals to Apollo what he had seen, albeit in a round-about way, perhaps
to be attributed to the effect of Hermes’ words to him.
While such motifs as those mentioned above may have had an in-
fluence on the Hymn’s plot, the poet has crafted a distinct tale. Thus,
Hermes steals Apollo’s cattle in Thessaly, the region in which Admetus
was king (cf. Ant.Lib. 23.2 θ [sc. Apollo’s cattle] b
_! ¹ #A7 "*«), but the Hymn poet makes no mention of Ad-
metus, except perhaps for the tantalizing $
« at 103; cf. " *
at 190 perhaps hinting at Battus’ name, as Kuiper (1910, 34 n. 1) and Clay
Politics 114 suggest. Furthermore, we cannot safely interpret the cows as
human souls in the possession of the lord of the dead or a death demon
despite the repetition of $!φ)μ ) at 221 and 344, elsewhere
appearing in descriptions of the kingdom of the dead (see 221n.), and
despite Hermes’ function as the 5/*«: The poet makes it clear
that all the gods had their cattle in Pieria (71–72). All in all, while the par-
allels pointed out by Davies seem to be in the backdrop of the story, one
can see the poet’s efforts to dissociate his tale from other traditional
cattle-theft stories with which the audience might have been familiar.
On the other hand, Radermacher 194–96 compared the Old Man to
characters who are visited by gods in disguise (or by priests) and prove
to be god-fearing and hospitable; cf. Od. 17.485–87, Hdt. 6.127.3, Paus.
3.16.2–3, Hecale in Callimachus’ homonymous epyllion, Molorchus in
the Aetia, Aesop in the Vita Aesopi 4–8 (p. 36–38 Perry), Acta Petri et
Andreae 3–5 (= II 118–20 Bonnet), Cat. 64.384–86, Ov. M. 8.611–724
(with Bömer ad loc. p. 191–92, Hollis p. 108), F. 5.493–536), Malten
(1939 179–82), Fontenrose (1945). But again, for such a comparison to
be entirely valid, there should be a tangible reward for the Old Man,
which at least in this version is missing.
Finally, we may view this section as a (condensed) variant of the ‘ar-
rival scene’; cf. Arend (1933, 28–34) (“einfache Ankunft”). Of its five
Lines 87–93, 87–88 301
parts (1. the hero sets off; 2. he arrives; 3. he finds the person he is seek-
ing, and sometimes this person’s activity is indicated; 3a. the by-
standers are mentioned; 4. he approaches; 5. he speaks), 1. and 2. are
combined (88 # #O/(!μ )/(; from 85 we know that Hermes
is arriving from Pieria), 3. occurs at 87 ( $! $)7), and
4. is not mentioned at all.
87 !% : the anonymous Old Man is the only human character in the
Hymn and, curiously, neither Hermes nor Apollo reveal their divinity
to him; nor does the Old Man seem to realize that the infant with the
fifty backwards marching cows may be a god. This is a result of the ex-
tremely anthromorphic and humorous presentation of the gods in the
poem.
% $ " $% : ‘working on his blooming orchard (here:
vineyard).’ M’s reading was adopted by most editors except Gemoll,
who emended to Ω $ μ $)
« comparing with 90
and 207; his argument that one would not hoe vines when they are
blooming was refuted by Allen (1895, 285); cf. Thphr. CP 3.16.1.
In Homer is used of building walls or edifices (e.g., Il. 6.245,
7.337; Od. 6.9–10, 14.6–8), while at Hdt. 2.124.3, 7.200.1 it is used of
constructing roads. That means here hoeing or digging around
the plants and that $)7 refers to a vineyard is made clear at 90–91
(! «, )7!«); digging around the vine’s roots is just one of
the tasks that are required in viticulture; see Burford (1993, 133–35).
" ! $)7 (Il. 18.561) could have been used instead of $-
! $)7 here; the substitution may be purposeful, implying that
the vineyard has not yielded any produce yet (cf. 91, and p. 50).
88 ¹ : for Hermes’ speed, cf. 22 ($U<«), 43–46, 52

(φ ), 70 (), and 86 (*«).
’ #O!5μ 5 : Onchestos is a town in SW Boeotia,
between Haliartos and Thebes. It was a cult-site of Poseidon; cf.
186–87, Il. 2.506, h.Apol. 229–38, Pi. I. 1.32–33, 4.37, A.R. 3.1242, Str.
9.2.33 (= p. 412 C.), [Apollod.] 2.4.11 (= II 67), Paus. 9.26.5, 9.37.1,
D.Chr. 37.12, Pediasim. on [Hes.] Sc. 104 (= p. 621 Gaisford), Stat.
Theb. 7.271–72, Schachter (1986, 207–21). In Hellenistic times the town
became the seat of the Amphictyony (Str. loc.cit.). The sanctuary to Po-
seidon is dated to the late 6th c. BC; cf. Schachter (1986, 212, 215 n. 1).
302 Commentary
No other version of Hermes’ cattle-theft mentions Onchestos, and

the poet does not explicitly state why Hermes decided to pass through
Onchestos. There are three possible reasons: like other sanctuaries of
Poseidon, the sanctuary at Onchestos controlled an important route,
hence one would presumably have to pass through there; but ²-
( $) 85 might argue against this, if we take it to mean
‘avoiding the regular road / highway.’ Holland (1926, 167), mentions in
addition to the southbound road that branched off at Onchestos,
Hermes’ cult at Tanagra and Mt. Kerykion as a reason for the poet’s in-
troduction of Onchestos in the Hymn; on Hermes’ cult in Boeotia, see
Schachter (1986, 40–54), who points out that the account of Hermes’
birth at Hes. Th. 938–39 is embedded in what one might call a “Boeo-
tian section” of the Theogony (i.e. lines 930–55 which deal with couples
and offspring with special relation to Boeotia) and concludes that the
tradition of Hermes’ birth in Tanagra goes back at least to the archaic
age. Finally, the poet may have included Onchestos as a reference to
h.Apol.; see above, p. 70–73.
B. Martin (1605, 38) cites this verse with R /(! which he em-
ends to 5O/(! (sic).
89 μ « φ: The speech-introduction μ * «

!φ( occurs only also at 189 (see n. ad loc.) and is confined
to h.Herm. It is adapted from the Homeric μ * « !:
The poet had to modify the regular Homeric phrase to accommodate
M(«/[(« « ¹*« and thus set up a comparison between
the two gods’ encounter with the Old Man; cf. van Nortwick (1975,
31–32). Phrases such as μ # $"*« (K* @) -
!φ( or $/ ¹!( !φ( may also be in the formular back-
ground.
M« & « ¹«: cf. Epigr.Gr. 812 (quoted at 81n.). Apollo
and Hermes are referred to through a periphrasis involving their
mother’s name five times in the poem (cf. 176, 189, 416 Apollo; 550
Hermes), and M(« « ¹*« is modelled on the more frequent
[(« « ¹*«; for an overview of the distribution of the
various forms of address in the Hymn, see Vergados (2011a, 18 n. 44).
The attribution of 7« to Maia contributes to the poet’s strategy
of elevating the nymph’s status (cf. 10–19n., 19n., 52–64n.); the fact that
at 550 M(« « ¹*« is uttered by Apollo implies his acknow-
Lines 88–90 303
ledgment of Maia’s position as an equal of Leto (and consequently of

Hermes’ status as well).
90–93 Hermes’ address to the Old Man

90–93 ‘Old man, who hoe plants, (i.e. these) curved logs, you will really
obtain lots of wine (or: get very drunk) when all these produce; then,
though you see be blind and deaf though you have heard and be silent
whenever you are not harmed in your interests.’
90 «: ! does not occur in Homer or Hesiod, but we

meet ! φ« … (‘hoeing of vines’) at Hes. Op. 572; cf. West’s
n. ad loc. on the ancient authorities regarding the appropriate time for
digging around vines. In particular, IG XII (7)62.8–10 (= Rhodes and
Osborne [2003, 282–86] no. 59; a land lease from Arcesine, Amorgos
4th c. BC) deserves mention, as it provides that the tenant will hoe
the vines twice, first in the month Anthesterion (February), and
then before the twentieth day of Taureion (early April); this knowledge
may go back to Androtion, governor of Arcesine and author of a
treatise on farming; cf. Rhodes and Osborne (2003, 250–51, 286) and
Jameson (1987, 291–2). Thphr. CP 3.12.2 reports the view that one
should dig in the springtime. Hoeing and pruning could take place at
the same time; cf. Thphr. 3.16.1 who also recommends hoeing vines
twice, Gp. 3.3.6 (hoeing vines in March), 3.10.1 (in July); V. G.
2.397–417 (quotannis terque quaterque), Colum. 4.5. (ex Kalendis
Martiis usque in Octobris tricensimo quoque die novella vineta confo-
dere omnisque herbas et precipue gramina extirpare), Arb. 6.4 (circa
Kal. Martias); Plin. Nat. 17.188–89 (22) too transmits various views
on the subject.
On φ3 «, cf. φ! φ« in A.R. 1.1172, Theoc. 24.138,
25.27, Nonn. D. 16.316 etc., and φ! φ( at AP 16.202.4.
&' »: most editors follow ( 1)« c«);
M transmits the unmetrical 1) <1), <1) being in all likeli-
hood a gloss for ») that made its way into the text (so AS and Ra-
dermacher, who adopted it); cf. !φ@« at 51. The phrase recurs,
though in a different sedes, at Hes. Op. 427. Its derivation (see Frisk, s.v.
») for its derivation from * ζ-); Beekes, s.v. contests it as un-
certain; see also West on Hes. Op. 427) and its recurrence at 112, suggest
304 Commentary
that ») primarily means ‘logs for burning’ and at any rate does not
regularly designate plants.
’s reading would imply that Hermes is sincerely speaking to this
Old Man, bent with his years, promising him a good vintage if he does
not reveal what he just saw. Conversely, if the Old Man were to talk, he
would be somehow punished (his own interests would be harmed as 93
suggests). But this is not the case in the Hymn: The Old Man reveals to
Apollo what he knows about the cattle, but is not harmed by Hermes.
The promise and warning implied by the adoption of 1)«
c« would thus be completely gratuitous.
91 « is Ilgen’s rearticulation of M’s )L 7!«. We

meet ) again in Theodorus Studites Catech. Magna 29 p. 208
(Papadopoulos-Kerameus) μ )7! [@, where it means
‘consume wine excessively, get drunk’; apart from excess in wine con-
sumption (Pl. Lg. 666b (« λ )«, Ph.Jud. De Pl. 146
[= p. 351 M.], De ebr. 22 [= p. 360 M.], Plu. 239a etc.), the cognates of
), )1« and ) may also indicate abundance in
wine production (Th. 1.138.5, X. Vect. 5.3, Arist. fr. 597, Str. 16.2.9
[= p. 751 C.], Gp. 4.1.14, Pollux 1.243, Lib. Or. 11.23 [= p. 282 R.], 31.20
[= II p. 213 R.] etc.). Hermes’ )7!« is thus ambivalent: it may
mean both ‘you will produce lots of wine’ and ‘you will get drunk’; cf.
Radermacher ad loc.
For the formation of ), cf. )) (Plu. 640f:
<)>) 1!« Cobet; Soran. Gyn. 2.28); and for the sense,
cf. also )!φ)« (Il. 2.507, 2.537, h.Hom. 26.11, [Hes.] fr. 70.6
etc.).
φ9: for φ ‘produce,’ see LSJ, s.v. φ A V; for the form,
cf. Il. 18.308, Od. 5.164, 10.507 (same sedes), 19.111; for the sense, cf.
Od. 9.110–11 Ν), b φ ! | ρ !φ) and X.
Oec. 20.4.
For the lacuna after this verse that was posited by Groddeck, see
above, p. 297–99.
92–93 … $ '«: Hermes uses here a proverbial expression,

just as at 36. Often the alternation between seeing/not seeing and
hearing / not hearing is accompanied by an explicit statement about the
person’s intellectual capabilities; cf. Heracl. fr. 34 D.-K. $<1
Lines 90–92 305
$ 1!« φ! !· φ« C! *«

$, [A.] Pr. 443–48 $ 1!’, —« !φ« (« R« μ λ |
3« 3( λ φ ("*)« (‘in control of, hence with a
sound mind’) … | θ ξ ")« 3") ( | )1«
C - …, S. fr. 923 $))# ¹ « !!« C φλ *, |
$))# C# ² « ! ! $φ
; [Dem.] 25.89 introduces the
phrase with μ
« «; cf. further Ev.Marc. 8.17–18 Κ
Cξ !; … Sφ)L« 3/« C ") λ τ 3/-
« C $ 1; Ev.Matt. 13.13 ")« C«
)), Ρ ")« C ")! λ $ 1! Cξ !!,
[Plu.] 13e, Pl. Mil. 571–73 Ne tu hercule, si te di ament, linguam com-
primes | posthac, etiam illud quod scies nesciveris | nec videris quod vide-
ris; Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1623, AHS ad loc., Strömberg (1954, 15) no. 2,
and Tzifopoulos (2000, 154–55).
92 +6 : is concessive; cf. Ruijgh, épique §746, who

argues against a lacuna after 91. The fact that the digamma is not ob-
served in κ @ is not sufficient reason to assume with AHS hiatus
between @, since such prosodic variation is not unique; cf.
ρ (61) vs. ’ ρ (285) and the examples quoted in Hopkinson
(1982, 162–72).
ρ : an imperatival infinitive; cf. 36 ρ (likewise in a piece of
proverbial wisdom), 93 !», 571 $!! (with n. ad loc.).
%φ«: R. Thomas (1891, 48–53) reconstructs the semantic deve-
lopment of φ*« along the following lines: he views it as a derivative
of * (though this is not universally accepted; cf. Frisk and Chan-
traine DELG s.v. who link it with (φ7 ‘drone,’ φ(* ‘worn
out’, a connection that Beekes s.v. φ(* considers hypothetical);
its primary sense is ‘blunt’ (cf. Il. 11.389–92: a φμ ")« is distin-
guished from an S<1 one); this leads to the meaning ‘ineffective, power-
less’ (Il. 14.16–22 a is φ* which C# Ν )
C# ' !; cf. Alcm. 14c); a further meaning is ‘senseless, hence also
unable to react’ (Il. 24.54 φ7 … ). Outside of Homer proper
we meet also the meanings ‘deaf, mute’ (Hdt. 1.34.2 [cf. X. Cyr. 7.2.20],
1.47.3, S. Ichn. 220, Pl. Phdr. 253e, Grg. 511b, Cratin. 6.3, Men. fr. 53.2),
and ‘dull-witted’ (Pi. P. 9.87, S. Aj. 911, Pl. Ti. 88b); especially Pindar’s
line φμ« $7 «, χ« H ) !* κ ")) (‘a man who
does not invest Heracles with his speech is φ*«’) and the verse from
306 Commentary
Sophocles’ Ajax Ω # ² φ*«, ² # Ν « | ()(!

(‘I, being completely φ*«, completely ignorant, paid no heed’) show
how easy it was to pass from ‘deaf, mute’ to ‘dull-witted’. Accordingly,
φ*« primarily means ‘deaf’ here, but given the first part of Hermes’
address (90–91) and the connotations of the proverb, it may imply that
the Old Man is dull.
93 Ρ : for Ρ 7 ‘whenever … not’, ‘unless’, a temporal-condi-

tional clause; cf. Il. 13.319–20, 14.248, 16.227, Od. 16.197–98 ≈
23.185–86, LSJ, s.v. Ρ A I 2 c, Monro 263 (§ 289.2a), Chantraine, GH
II 260 (§382). Clauses introduced by Ρ 7 express indefinite time
(‘whenever’) and their mood follows the same rules as the conditional
clauses. They may be construed with the subjunctive, which as Monro
loc.cit. observes, indicates an event ‘which may occur repeatedly, or at
any time … so in maxims etc.’; cf. also A.R. 1.245, 4.409. The optative is
the mood regularly found in a Ρ 7-clause in Homer (cf. the Homeric
examples cited above and X. Mem. 3.14.6; at Arist. Pol. 1277a24 and
A.R. 4.587–88 the optative may be attributed to the indirect discourse).
An indicative is found e.g., at Pl. Prm. 155e, Arist. Rh. 1382b32, D.H.
Lys. 15.
Radermacher printed λ !», Ρ 7 , ")9 ( μ !μ
C, and took Ρ 7 as an equivalent of ξ 7 ; he rendered
accordingly ‘otherwise you will be harmed in respect to your property,’
which implies that Hermes is threatening the Old Man. However, this is
not supported by the text; see above p. 297–99, 304.
<9 is passive. The verb occurs first here and subsequently
at Pl. Lg. 877b, Dem. 23.50, Arist. Rh. 1418a7, I.Cret. IV42B 11, 82B 3
( "); both Gortyna, 5th c. BC) etc.
Weiher (1970) prints ")9 (« and translates this verse by
“Tust du es nicht, dann fürcht ich, du schadest der eigenen Sache!”
(‘if you don’t do it, then I am afraid you are harming your own inte-
rests’). This was already proposed by Franke ad loc. who rendered “nisi
quid detrimenti tuam ipsius rem s. utilitatem capere velis.” But this
would imply that Hermes is threatening the Old Man with punishment
as he does in the Battus story. In the Hymn such a threat would be
empty.
μ μ : : for the genitive after the possessive, cf. Schwyzer II
177, to whose examples add Pi. fr. 97; for the ‘article’, cf. Il. 6.490 = Od.
Lines 92–95 307
1.356 !# C
« 3 *&. μ !μ C is equivalent to the refle-
xive μ ! and lends some support to taking ")9 ( as a se-
cond person.
94–104 Hermes’ journey to the Alpheios

Having briefly addressed the Old Man, Hermes quickly leads the cows
to the Alpheios river.
94 φ«: this speech closing phrase occurs only here. γ« @
could have been used as in 227, 496 (or γ« Ν ’ 3φ( with slight modifi-
cation of the verse). *!! underscores the brevity of Hermes’ speech,
and the poet’s choice of this novel expression suggests his thoughtful
adaptation of traditional language.
: an emendation of Chalcondyles’, which is closer to the
MSS φ!λ 3!(!) and accounts for the corruption in a much
simpler way (iotacism and mis-division) than Cobet’s φ« 3!!
adopted by West. For !!, cf. 106, 240 !7)!!. !!!1 is
subsequently found at [Orph]. A. 982.
< - ;φ" : cf. 302, 394, 402, Il. 23.260.
Fφ« (‘strong’) has no trace of initial ζ and therefore cannot
be associated with F«; for the etymologies suggested thus far, see Beekes,
s.v., who considers Fφ« to be of Pre-Greek origin. Pagliaro (1963,
22 n. 13) tentatively suggests a connection with Sanskrit sphāyate
(‘prospering, becoming stronger’) and Gr. !φ()*« ‘strong’ (cf. Hsch.
7967).
95 2: for this contracted form, cf. φ) (382), φ« (402), 1
(405). However, R may have stood here. But at 70 we met R ,
which is guaranteed by the metre. Cf. further 61 (1« vs. 113
(.
:- « '«: ‘echoing, resounding glens.’ C)@ occurs
first here and subsequently at Hdt. 7.128.1, [A.] Pr. 731, S. Tr. 100, Ar.
Av. 244, X. An. 2.3.10, [E.] Rh. 112, Thphr. HP 4.14.12, fr. 6.1.3 (
!« /@ « … Ρ!« R ( K5() λ C)« !) etc.
In Homer )*« describes in this sedes Artemis, in the phrase
/ !() « )7: Il. 16.183, 20.70, 21.511; cf. h.Aphr. 16 with
Faulkner ad loc., 118, h.Hom. 27.1. (It also describes once Zephyrus at
308 Commentary
Il. 23.208; A.R. 3.532 writes of 1« … ) W«.) The
epithet may refer to Artemis’ musical as well as her hunting activities as
b(BCE3)T Il. 16.183 ( « « 7 « "7!« … ν «
/ «) suggests; the two ideas are combined in h.Hom. 27.7–10 (/
# λ ! « 8)( | μ Kμ )
« ( ) and 13–19 (3 /
« !7 φ) | … | M! λ X )μ
/ μ $ !. | 3 !! ) *< λ L«
| π … | < /! / 1«α ¹ # $" !( R# ¹! | K!
[(Ω ))!φ ). Due (1965, 2–3) proposes that )*« refers
“to the sounds of wild nature.” But )*« can also be an attribute
of song: cf. Pi. P. 3.113–14 < ), « s !φλ |
Ϊ ! (cf. fr. 52e.46–48 )) » !L ) … Sφ) »), of the
Graces (P. 9.89a X )»), and insolence (I. 4.26–27 -
)»« ’ S φλ | 8" «).
96 ’ $ " : for the turn of phrase, cf. Pi. fr. 107a.4–5 $
:@ $* |. $*« describes either places covered
with flowers, often accompanying place-names (Il. 2.467, 2.695, [Hes.]
fr. 34, 405, Bacch. 16.5), or is an attribute of earth (Hes. Th. 878),
pastures (h.Aphr. 169), or objects decorated with flowers (Il. 23.885,
Od. 3.440, 24.575). At Alc. 367.1 it describes spring.
(): ‘traversed.’ The entry in LfgrE s.v. )1 II 1 (col.
519.13–4) gives the impression that "« is to be supplied with 7)!,
but this is not the case; driving animals through a place requires a dif-
ferent construction; cf. Il. 10.564 φ 7)! @/« b«.
(At Il. 12.62 φ )1 % « b«, one Ms [Allen’s A]
has , while West in his apparatus suggests .)
For the sense ‘traversing’, cf. h.Hom. 19.12–13 ()) ’
$ * Κ , | )) ’ (! 7)!

« ), X. Cyr. 4.4.4 (²*!( ²μ 7)!), Plu. 829a.
' « E«: see 46n.
97–98 Gemoll 210, accepting the arguments of earlier editors, athe-

tized these lines to remedy what he perceived as problems in the tem-
poral progression of the story. If the cattle-theft takes place early at
night and Hermes needs almost the entire night to walk from Pieria to
the Alpheios, not much time is left for stabling and feeding the cows,
killing two of them, roasting their meat, and setting up the feast at the
Lines 95–96, 97–98 309
Alpheios. Line 98, Gemoll adds, states that dawn would soon approach;
at 143 we learn that Hermes arrived at Cyllene R «; but at 155–56
Maia asks !1, )
, * * μ« — 9 ( | 3 /9
(.
These objections were repeated by C. Robert (1906, 390–91) as evidence
that more than one poet had been at work in this Hymn. His arguments
were answered by Kuiper (1910, esp. 10–16); cf. already Franke’s com-
ment on 97–98: “tertia (sc. nox) supererat, qua qui neget Mercurium
illa omnia, quae vss. 101–41 narrantur, perficere potuisse, is profecto
et deo invidiam faciat et ipsi poetae.” The criticism of the Hymn’s
temporal indications stems partly from the misunderstanding of
R «/R « (see 98n.). Furthermore, Robert is wrong in interpre-
ting 141 as implying the appearance of a full moon; the action takes
place in the fourth day of the month after all.
Kuiper, following Gemoll, suggested omitting 97–98, without at-
tributing them to a Bearbeiter as Robert had done but to the poet him-
self, a “vir mediocriter a Musis donatus” (p. 10). He understood )μ
ξ φ*« ) )7(« at 141 as “clarum effundere lumen,”
which he considered to be in conflict with the fact that the story is
taking place on the fourth day of the month. But note that the moon’s
light is said to shine )* only after Hermes has completed the cattle-
theft and his ‘ritual’ and is on his way return home. Earlier (97) night is
Hermes’ «, surely because it is dark. The poet mentions the
moon twice (here and at 141, framing the section narrating Hermes’
‘ritual’), and this is to be connected with Hermes’ defense speech to
Zeus: there the young god will claim that he respects Helios, who is
often invoked as a witness in oaths; Hermes can say such a thing be-
cause it was actually Selene who observed from her ! 7 Hermes’ ac-
tions.
But a general point ought to be made: such objections as those of Ge-
moll and Robert ignore the fairy-tale nature of the poem and Hermes’
ability to put rapidly into practice whatever he conceives; cf. 43–46, 65,
and 86. It is not against the Hymn’s internal logic that Hermes accom-
plishes the remaining deeds before dawn. After all, gods can cover very
long distances extremely quickly; cf. Il. 13.20–21, 14.225–30, 15.80–83,
h.Apol. 186, 448, [Hes.] Sc. 30–33, West (2007, 152). Moreover, the events
in a narrative do not occur at a steady pace, and epic poetry especially
provides parallels for the duration of the night in the Hymn: one only
needs to consider for instance the events that transpire in Books 9 and 10
310 Commentary
of the Iliad. A strictly rational analysis of the temporal progression in the

Hymn is unjustified since most of Hermes’ actions are not rational by the
standards of common logic: it is impossible for an infant to walk with
fifty head of cattle walking backwards from Pieria to the Peloponnese in
one night, just as it is impossible for an infant to construct a tortoise-lyre
and sing to it about his parents’ love-affair immediately after his birth;
see 98n., 99n., and Zanetto (1996, 264–65).
Lines 97–98 are often compared to Il. 10.251–53 ) L<
Ν, 1 ’ @«, | Ν! ξ κ ""( , / ξ
) L< | 1 , ( ’ 3 )), but the
Hymn is not as precise in its temporal indication here as the Iliadic pas-
sage; contrast with the poet’s emphasis on precise temporal markers
elsewhere in the poem (17–19n.). Thus the temporal division implied in
the Iliadic passage should not be applied to the Hymn.
97 >φ … '8: a modification of the Homeric 1 ’ S φ(

(found in 578); cf. A. W. Jones (1978, 165). The fact that night is accom-
panied by three words was considered a sign of emphatic speech (“be-
tonte Rede”) by Radermacher ad loc., comparing Il. 2.235 and 9.63; cf.
Hainsworth (1981, 13–14) on the higher frequency of ornamental epi-
thets in the Hymns compared to Homer proper.
Two of night’s attributes are unusual. & « indicates that
night assists Hermes in his thievish exploits; cf. 66–67. For night as an
ally, cf. also Hes. Op. 560 λ Cφ * !. Night
can be seen as the ally of another type of person who works at night,
viz. the lover; cf. Lyr. adsp. 1.11 (p. 177 CA) Ν! φ) λ *
L< ! ! . The young god, being a true π * « $κ
(cf. Hes. Op. 605) is especially associated with night; cf. 15 ( μ«
S(
), 290 ()(« μ« ' ), and 358 ()9 ( λ
@«). In Homer « generally designates military allies.
« is normally a form of address directed to humans; cf.
Brunius-Nilsson (1955). It may have been employed instead of
$" !( 1< (here unmetrical), or instead of L< "7 which
would be redundant here since the idea of darkness has already been ex-
pressed by S φ(; see Cantilena (1982, 246) who proposes that -
( is here motivated: the personified 1< is Hermes’ ally.
Lines 97–99 311
98 2" « … !«: ‘the dawn’s light that sends people to work.’
R « is “a period of darkness (or the start of a period of darkness)
preceding daybreak, where torches were needed, and when most people
were asleep”; it is considered a part of 1<. See Wallace (1989, 202),
who discusses the ancient authorities on the matter.
For the idea, cf. Hes. Op. 579–81 @« φ ξ ²,
φ ξ λ 3 (i.e. Dawn furthers one on the road as well as
on the work), | @«, D φ! )« "(! )1 | $ @-
« ))! ’ λ & "!λ (!, Call. fr. 21.3 *φ #
$7!h! )*φ "μ« g T@ (= π ) (‘then Tito, i.e. Day,
rose in order to vex the oxen’s neck, sc. with the yoke’), fr. 177.5–6 (= SH
529), [Orph.] H. 78.6 3 π7 (sc. #H@«), V. A. 11.182–83 Aur-
ora … | referens opera atque labores, Ov. Met. 4.664 admonitor(que)
operum (of Lucifer) with Bömer ad loc.
!« normally designates people whose skill is placed at the
service of the community; cf. Od. 17.383–85, 19.35, and Bader (1965,
135–41). The basic meaning is ‘those who practice activities that con-
cern the people,’ the first member being 7« instead of
« as is
sometimes assumed. Unless ( *« is transferred from the people
who go to work to R «, i.e. the time when these people set out to
work, the epithet must be mean that R « sends the people (
«)
to their work (3 ).
For the equation of times of the day with human activities, cf. Od.
9.58 (_« ’ )« ! ")*) and μ« $)) at 7.
99 ‘And divine Selene, daughter of lord Pallas, son of Megamedeus, had

recently reached her vantage point in the sky.’
: Radermacher 87–88 proposed that should be under-
stood here as ‘again’ (cf. Il. 2.88, 8.421, Hes. Op. 569), instead of ‘re-
cently.’ Thus, while R « was arriving (98), it was delayed by the lin-
gering of Selene. Radermacher further suggested that the poet does not
dwell on this miracle since such manipulation of time is not uncommon
in Epic; cf. Il. 18.239–42 (Hera ends the day earlier by sending Helios to
Oceanus), Od. 23.243 (the prolongation of the night on which Hercules
was conceived) with Frazer (1921, I 174 n. 1), Thompson, Motif-Index
D.2146.2.2 (Night magically lengthened). Radermacher’s suggestion is
attractive although not strictly necessary since the moon may some-
times rise later at night.
312 Commentary
κ < ) : cf. [Hes.] Sc. 33 (= [Hes.] fr.

195.33) d $ * !"7! ( Z1«: a deity, whose
name occupies the final part of the line after !"7!, approach-
ing a look-out place occupying the beginning of the line.
: cf. 65 Θ) ! 7 (sc. Hermes); cf. A. Th. 390
where the moon is μ« Sφ)*«. Appropriately, the moon has a
! 7 during the activities of an π * « $7 . Conversely, at
Od. 8.302 the sun is said to have a ! 7 (‘look-out place’ or ‘vantage
point’) and reveals to Hephaestus Aphrodite’s affair with Ares; cf. Il.
3.277 (#H)*« #, χ« # φ ) »« λ # 1«), h.Dem. 62
(Helios as the ! *« of gods and men). At Od. 11.15–16 and [A.] Pr.
796–97 we meet two exceptions, the Cimmerians and the Phorcides,
whom the sun does not see.
< : In Homer we find forms in -"7! which Ari-
starchus considered as imperfects and did not admit into the text; cf.
van der Valk (1964, II 172–74). Monro 43 (§41) and Schwyzer I 788 con-
sider these forms as old augmented futures corresponding to the Latin
forms in -urus eram; cf. Shipp (1972, 110) “past tense of the desiderative-
future.” But Leumann (1952–53, esp. 206–10) showed that these forms
were created from imperatives of the future stem: so Il. 8.505 *)«
’ Ν<! "*« followed by 8.545 *)« ’ Ν< "*«, Il. 11.512
Ν ! S/ "7!, ξ M/ | " followed by
11.517 C ’ o S/ "7!, ξ M/ | ". The
imperative "7!/ "7! occurs only four times in the Iliad; the
mixed aorist form has a broader distribution (16x in the Iliad; 12x in the
Odyssey), and perhaps it was felt as an equivalent of 3"(/3" even in
cases where no such future-stem imperative went before, so that it even
replaced the regular form in formulaic verses (cf. γ« Ν φ7!«
[φ7!!#] $"7! at Il. 1.428, 2.35, instead for the commoner γ«
Ν φ7!« $"(). "7! occurs in h.Apol. 49 (with "7! as
v.l.). The same variation occurs in other Homeric passages, where this
mixed aorist is transmitted (e.g., Il. 1.428, 2.35). The forms in - may
represent an attempt to regularize the forms in - (so Leumann, loc.
cit. 206), and the original form in our verse may have been !-
"7!, which was regularized very early in the transmission of the
Hymn, leaving no trace in our MSS. Cf. Cobet (1862, 291–92).
) : probably has its full force here, ‘heavenly’, instead
of simply ‘noble’ or ‘excellent’; cf. LfgrE, s.v. « B.
Lines 99–100 313
100 P « "! M! Ν «: The line is tradi-

tional from a formulaic point of view (A, son/daughter of B, the noble
son of C; cf. Il. 2.566, 2.624, 2.679, 2.693, 23.678, Od. 16.395, 24.305,
and perhaps [Hes.] fr. 70.9), but Selene’s genealogy here is unique.
The unusual genealogy of Selene led Groddeck to athetize 99–100,
as Heyne had done before him. Ilgen conjectured the equally unattested
7, comparing 7(« (sic) at X. Mem. 1.2.60
((«) and K « at Il. 23.302 (N! « $)μ« ¹μ«
K 1 Ν «), positing a relation such as Ν«: $7(«
(Suda 765) or Ν «: $ 7(«.
The MSS transmit forms of M((«, ‘son of Megamedes,’ a
character otherwise unknown in myth. At Hes. Th. 371 Selene is the
daughter of Hyperion, while Pallas is said to be the son of Kreios, hence
cousin of Selene (Hes. Th. 376); there is no indication that Pallas was
the father of Selene elsewhere in Greek literature. At Ov. Met. 9.421,
15.191, 15.700 Aurora is called Pallantis or Pallantias.
Selene was sometimes identified with Hecate, on whose father’s wis-
dom Hesiod comments (Th. 377 P !( ’ χ« λ »! -
!19 (!), and this may have a bearing on Selene’s genealogy here.
On the basis of the identification of Hecate with Selene, Gemoll 211
suggested that a tradition might have existed according to which Selene
was the daughter of Pallas. At any rate, both pairs (Selene and Hecate,
Perses and Pallas) are kept distinct in Hesiod, although mentioned in
adjacent sections of the Theogony.
M( is preferable to Càssola’s (
(for which see Führer [1978] 707) and may have been coined by the
poet to hint at Hermes’ cunning, as Shelmerdine ad loc. suggests. For
its formation, cf. #E((« that occurs in Athens on inscriptions
from 304/3 BC (LGPN II 151) and :((« found at IG
XII 9.1011.1 (Euboia; see LGPN I 136, s.v. :7(«; the name is re-
stored :(<>(«). At AP 6.276.6 (= 515 HE) Meineke conjec-
tured [ (. (P Suid have [ (; Gow proposed [-
() .)
Punctuation is needed after Ν «; cf. Wolf2 and West. Otherwise
we should expect _« at 101 (this is what Càssola in fact translates
although he retains the MSS
«).
314 Commentary
101 «: epic normally uses _« clauses to express a point in time
(usually sunrise or sunset) or a recurrent, cyclical event in man’s acti-
vities which intersects with a unique event that occurs in the linear time
of the narrative (introduced by
«, *, or without conjunction);
examples are listed in A. P. Radin (1988). Here the recurring cyclical
event (the arrival of R «) is presented as a main clause, while the
unique event is introduced by
« as one would expect; cf. 10n.
μ« Ν « ¹«: elsewhere used only of Heracles (see parallels
in formulaic apparatus and the apparatus similium), another precocious
divine child; cf. Pi. N. 1.35–50. This formula contributes to the poem’s
humour, since so far Hermes has not performed any deed of $) 7; in
fact, the argument in his subsequent defense-speeches will be based pre-
cisely on his lack of $) 7. At the same time, this formula (a doublet of
:μ« $)μ« ¹*« 432), may look forward to 116–23 (see n. ad loc.) and
to the dais at the Alpheios, which takes place near Olympia and could
be interpreted as a reference to the foundation of the sacrifice to the
Twelve Gods, said to have been established by Heracles; cf. Larson
(2005, 11) and below, 116–41n.
102 < « ? :6 «: at Hes. Th. 291 "« -)!
C @« is used of Heracles stealing Geryon’s cattle; following
directly :μ« Ν) « ¹*« of 101, it lends credence to the possibility
that Hermes is here implicitly (and humorously) compared to Heracles.
103 $«: ‘of their own accord’; cf. Theoc. 11.12–13 )) λ
R« λ Κ) Cλ $
| /) »« "« and AP 7.173
(=1769–70 HE, Diotimus) C* )9 ( λ C) ¹ "*«
_) | < R «. Ilgen emended to $
« ‘unwearied,’ comparing
h.Apol. 520 (Ν ( ξ )*φ !" !), but there is no need
to change the MSS reading here.
The meaning ‘unbroken’ may also be present here. $7«/$7(
can be used of (female animals) in the sense of ‘unbroken,’ ‘not used for
work’; cf. Il. 10.292–93 = Od. 3.382–83 " - C , |
$7(, p Κ Kμ &μ - $7 , which may lie in the
formulaic background of 102 and 103. Ant.Lib. 23, furthermore, trans-
mits that Hermes abducted "« Ν&«. $7«/$7( means ‘vir-
gin’ when applied to women; cf. « $7« (Od. 6.109, 6.228,
[Hes.] fr. 59.4, h.Dem. 145, h.Aphr 82, Bacch. 5.167). But Il. 23.265–66
Lines 101–104 315
(b … | '<’ $7( " φ« π !) shows that the
epithet’s sexual connotation does not necessarily apply to animals.
Finally, in $
« may lie an allusion to the cattle of Admetus
which Apollo had to tend as a punishment for killing the Cyclopes; this
may be a substrate of our tale; see 87–93n. For Apollo’s servitude to
a mortal, cf. [Hes.] fr. 54 a–c, Acusil. 2 F 19, Pherec. 3 F 35, 3 F 131,
[Apollod.] 3.10.4 (= III 122); at Il. 2.766 Apollo is said to have tended
the mares of Eumelus, son of Admetus; see Gantz (1993, 92). This oc-
curred in P( (, which in some manuscripts of the Iliad is substituted
by P (. Because of this and the testimony in Ant.Lib. 23 that Apol-
lo’s herd was grazing b _! ¹ #A7 "*«, AHS p. 273 be-
lieve it is “a possible conclusion that as P ( (and other forms) over-
laid P( 9 ( in the Iliad, Pieria in the hymn is unoriginal also.”
&« Κ DB" : Κ) is not found in Homer or Hesiod,
but cf. σ) (71, Il. 9.232, Od. 22.470). For a cave as stable for cattle, cf.
Paus. 4.36.2–3. Müller (1833) incorrectly identified the cave in which
Hermes had hidden Apollo’s cows with “Nestor’s cave” near Mt. Co-
ryphasion (midway between Voidhokoilia bay and Palaiokastron), and
further suggested that stalactite formations in the cave might have
inspired the poet’s idea about the stretched cow-hides of 124–26. How-
ever, Hermes does not take the cattle to Messenia, and the hides were
stretched on a rock outside the cave.
DB" (‘high-built’) recurs at [Orph.] H 5.1 and Nonn.
Paraphr. 14.110, and its combination with Κ) is incongruous as is
the existence of watering troughs in the following line.
104 '«: ‘watering troughs.’ Elsewhere, )(*« is the pressing floor

or wine-vat, and by synecdoche it was later “perceived as the entire
wine-making complex which included the )(*«”; cf. Mayerson (2000,
165), [Theoc.] 25.28, Nic. Al. 163, Long. 2.1.1, 2.1.3 etc., Philostr. VA
2.8, Hsch. ) 887 )(*«· Ρ !φ)κ . The word occurs first
here.
$ « - «: $ 7« is another non-traditional epi-
thet for )@; cf. 72 $ ( !«, 1«. In epic $ 7« de-
scribes people (Il. 6.477, 9.441 [> Pl. Grg. 485d], Od. 8.390, h.Aphr. 103;
A.R. 4.1192), and rarely objects (Il. 15.309, Od. 8.424) or features of the
natural world (stars at Il. 8.556, a mountain at Od. 9.22).
316 Commentary
105–141 Hermes at the Alpheios river

105–106 For the image of a cattle or flock heading towards the stable
after their pasturing, cf. [Theoc.] 25.86–87.
105 0 "(): Hermes’ first invention is also introduced with 3 (24).
< « &φ<: "( can mean either ‘pasture’ as at Il.
13.493 or ‘fodder’ as here and at Od. 10.411. For the genitive with
φ ", cf. h.Hom. 30.4 ( φ " ! R)"); but cf. Hes.
Op. 376–77 κ« ξ « F( @ ρ | φ ", where
φ " means ‘increase’ (an unusual employment, as West ad loc. re-
marks).
< « &' «: cf. 74.
106 Cf. A.R. 4.674–75 for the reverse image: $ *, 1
) |
! Ϊ)« ρ! S(1
.
λ 3« ξ : coordinates 105 with 106, () in 108
being apodotic. (Thus AHS, contra AS; van Herwerden [1878, 198] pro-
posed C« but without any explanation.) For the coordination of a
pluperfect with an aorist, cf. Od. 22.274–77.
!)1 in the sense of ‘drive animals together’ recurs at [Hes.]
fr. 204.51, where stealing is implied, too ( 3φ# [sc. AF«] )«
"*« []λ [F]φ
) | !)!« @!); cf. 94 !!.
&« Κ : see 103n. As 398 makes clear, this cave is located near
(Triphylian) Pylos; but note that Ant.Lib. speaks of a cave near Mt.
Coryphasion, i.e. in Messenian Pylos. Characters associated with
Pylos (Neleus, Nestor, Melampous; cf. Il. 11.670–705, Od. 11.281–97,
15.222–55, 21.15–30, [Hes.] fr. 37) were involved in cattle-theft stories,
and this could have prompted the choice of Pylos in Hermes’ story as
well; cf. Nobili (2011, 23–70).
$"« Κ«: this clausula has been variously emended on account
of both the scansion of $ *˘ « and the form of the participle Κ!«.
Van Herwerden (1888) accepted Stadtmüller’s $ !« (‘having
been watered’), Shackle (1920, 100) thought that “a combination of
such incongruous licences [sc. both $ *˘ « and Κ!«] seems unlikely”
and proposed $ !!« ‘rounded up,’ while Agar (1921) suggested
$φ 1!« (‘flecked with foam’ due to the long journey), assuring us
that “a visit to any cattle-market would be sufficient to show the propri-
Lines 105–106 317
ety of this description.” However, there is no need for emendation here,

since there are epic parallels for both members of this clausula.
For $"˘ «, cf. [Hes.] fr. 150.15 ξ 1gh˘ « ¹(g)1h« and
[Hes.] Sc. 302 λ # % 1« )μ« 9 D ; cf. further Rzach (1876,
400–401), Buck GD §78, Morpurgo Davies (1964, 152–65), G. P. Ed-
wards (1971, 141–65), Janko (1982, 58–62, 144–45), and Cassio (2009,
200–201). There is nothing specifically Hesiodic or Boeotian about ac-
cusatives such as $ *˘ «, since they occur in Epich. 9.2 Ῠ «, 40.10
Ῠ «, 79.1 ) Ῠ «, 122.1 $φ1˘ « (all of which appear in the same sedes
of the tro4U verse), Tyrt. 4.5 (*˘ «, 7.1 !*˘ «; Alcm. 17.5 (pos-
sibly) Ῠ «, 68 Aρ˘ «; PMG 848.2 )Ῠ « — ˘ «; Emp. 115.6 ˘ «
— ˘ «; Stesich. 184.2 Ῠ «; and frequently in Theoc.; cf. Morpurgo
Davies (1964, 152 n. 3, 157 n. 1); for such accusatives in Doric, see also
Morsbach (1878, 4–6). These forms are attributed to a mainland poetic
tradition by Pavese (1972, 88–89). He also observes that the accusative
endings -*«, -Ῠ « (< -«, -«) are found in Arcadian, Cypriot, and
some Doric dialects of the islands. But the Laconian dialect has the
‘long’ ending (-«), as do the Boeotian and Delphic dialects (-« and
-« respectively); this means that the ‘short’ accusative endings in Alc-
man and Hesiod cannot derive from the spoken language but from the
poetic tradition. Pavese (1974, 93–94) dates the establishment of these
short endings to the 9th c. BC.
For Κ« in early hexameter, cf. Od. 7.94 $« R«, [Hes.]
fr. 204.91 σ!, h.Hom. 19.32 λ μ« c, Thgn. 98
(= 1164b) λ " L R, Xenoph. fr. 22.2 D.-K. 3) R;
h.Apol. 330 ()* σ! (but ()*# ! has been proposed).
$ *« Κ!« ‘being together in a group’, hence as a herd, is logi-
cally suggested by !)!!. It is the modification through inflec-
tion of a formula, reflexes of which we find at Od. 1.27 $ * _!* or
h.Apol. 157 $ * ρ*. $ *˘ « Κ!« in this verse seems to confirm
Morpurgo Davies’ explanation (op. cit. p. 161–62) of how such forms
emerged in epic: The epic bards in the mainland used formulae in which
the preconsonantal short accusatives in -«, -˘ « alternated with the pre-
vocalic accusatives in -«, -«; these formulae later underwent modi-
fications which may have caused such a ‘short’ accusative to appear in a
different position. The metrical utility may have later led bards to use
such forms also in other circumstances, e.g. in creating formulae by
analogy or when modifying a formula’s case.
318 Commentary
107 %μ & « # J ' : For the recurrence

of lotus and galingale in the same line, cf. Il. 21.351, Od. 4.603, Nonn.
D. 23.262. Il. 2.776 )μ * )* * !) could
have been used here with slight modification.
%«, lotus corniculatus or bird’s foot trefoil, and ' , gal-
ingale, cyperus rotundus or cyperus longus, appear in Homer as fodder
for horses; cf. Il. 2.776; Forster (1936, 100–101), Lembach (1970, 43–44,
181–83), Billerbeck (1972, 17–18), Polunin (1980, 306–308) nos. 612–15.
%μ & «: is generally used in Homer of
horses (Il. 2.776 = 5.196, 8.564), of geese (Od. 19.553), and eels and fish
feeding on the flesh of a dead man (Il. 21.204). At Od. 9.97 )μ
* refers to Odysseus’ men who wish to stay in the land of the
Lotus-Eaters and consume the )*« (obviously not the same type of
plant as that consumed by the cattle here: lotus Zizyphus, )μ«
; cf. Billerbeck [1972, 54–55]), the implication being that the
consumption of )*« reduced men to animals.
J occurs in Homer as an attribute of )*« instead of
1 as here; cf. Il. 14.348 )* # ' !7 (a line-beginning
that could have been used here).
' is neuter in Homer (Il. 21.351, Od. 4.603), but our poet
uses it as a masculine (Hp. Mul. 74 [VIII 158], 205 [VIII 394], 209 [404],
Scyl. Peripl. 112 [I p. 91 Müller], Theoc. 1.106, 5.45,4 Thphr. HP 1.8.1,
1.10.5 (the last has it as a feminine).
108 μ« # & 5 : ‘he sought to obtain (and thus
‘grasped’) the art of fire’; cf. 511 ' (« !φ(« !! /(.
The arrangement in our verse reminds of Od. 11.531 <φ« #
@(, a ‘parallel of sound,’ to use the terminology of
G. P. Edwards (1971, 74–84); see also Hainsworth on Od. 6.122. In this
type of parallel we are not dealing with the conscious re-use or adap-
tation of a traditional phrase, but rather with the (subconscious) me-
mory of sound-patterns that tend to be localized at a particular sedes
in the verse. However, such parallels do not prove oral composition,
but certainly point to a singer who has learned his poetic medium
through repeated oral performance. After all, one cannot deny the fact
4 The MSS of Theoc. vary in this respect. QWG1S1 at 1.106 and PQW at 5.45 give 1
(neuter).
Lines 107–108, 109–114 319
that poets who use writing are also sensitive to the words’ sound and
rhythm.
! is generally construed with the genitive when it means
‘strive,’ ‘seek to obtain,’ and with the accusative when it means ‘grasp’
or ‘touch’; cf. LSJ s.v. and LfgrE, s.v. II 3 for examples. Belardi
(1949, 279–81) distinguishes between two roots: *amā-/∂-, yielding
‘touch’, ‘seize,’ and *me-/o-/∂- yielding / ‘de-
sire’ and 1 ‘search’; With time the two verbs were confused since
they shared identical forms; this led to their semantic and syntactical
confusion as well.
! is used here metaphorically, in the sense of ‘inventing,’
and the poet may be exploiting both meanings and constructions of
!: Hermes thought of and desired fire, whereupon he immedi-
ately created it by grasping the 7. For the idea of mental grasping,
cf. A.R. 3.816 *) # Q !.
Observing that M transmits the corrupt 1(, Ilgen 391 conjec-
tured /9 ( “ex artis praeceptis, scite.” But it would be odd if we made
Hermes to follow the rules of an art that he was just establishing; at any
rate, 511 argues against an emendation here.
109–114 Hermes invents the fire-sticks

To kindle fire using fire-sticks, two pieces of wood are needed, the
1 and the ! 1« or !/ . The former is also termed
( *, the latter ( *. Fire is produced by rubbing or turn-
ing the 1 into the ! 1«. Once the 1 has been pre-
pared and sharpened, one would need both palms to turn it, unless
a ¹« was used (cf. Od. 9.382–86). Morgan (1890, 19–34) collects and
discusses the evidence on the subject (images on p. 14); on p. 33–34 he
proposes that ! 1« (found in Hsch. ! 1933 and the Scholiast on
A.R. 1.1184) is an error for 1«; but Hesychius’ entry is corrupt,
while the Scholiast on A.R. designates with ! 1« the piece of wood
that was 8 and on which the 1 was applied; see Vergados
(2012) for a discussion of the textual problems in the Hesychian entry.
For the 7 (fire-sticks), cf. Pl. R. 435a, Theoc. 22.33 (with Sens
ad loc.), Thphr. HP 5.3.4, 5.9.6–7, CP 1.21.7, Ign. 63–64, J. A.J. 5.238,
A.R. 1.1184, Lucr. 5.1096–1100, Seneca Nat. 2.22.1, Plin. Nat.
16.208, and the wealth of references to later texts in Pease (1939). D.S.
320 Commentary
5.67.2, rationalizing the myth of the fire-theft, considers Prometheus as

the inventor of the fire-sticks; note that pramantha was the Sanskrit
name for one of the parts of the fire-sticks; cf. Kuhn (1886, 17–18),
contra Frazer (1930, 196). At S. Ph. 36 (cf. 296–97) and Luc. VH 1.32
the are not fire-sticks, but stones (cf. VCφOSU ad loc. L« -
")« )« )).
Hermes uses laurel wood at 109, presumably for the 1; but
what about the ! 1«? The transmitted text of the second hemistich
of 109 ()) !7 ) M | )5 !7 ) ) does not say anything
about the type of wood from which the ! 1« was made. Editors
have assumed a lacuna here (so already Kuhn [1886, 36], followed by
AHS), in which the ! 1« was mentioned. Others have preferred to
restore the missing information by emending 109; Càssola’s text ( #
F)) !)) is a combination of Radermacher’s # F)) and Lud-
wich’s !) . However none of our sources mentions ! (pome-
granate wood) as material for the ! 1«, and ! was introduced
on account of the poet’s presumed association with Boeotia (cf. Ra-
dermacher 92). But such a Boeotian link is tenuous; cf. 149–50. Once
the emendation !) is removed from our text, Radermacher’s #
F)) becomes unnecessary. Of the two transmitted verbs, M’s ))
does not yield good sense, since it means ‘send’ or ‘throw’ (cf. LSJ s.v.
))). ’s )5, on the other hand, is satisfactory: Hermes picks
a branch that fits into his (small) hand, strips it from its foliage and
twigs, and sharpens it by means of an iron knife. (Postgate’s )
[i.e. ‘Hermes was smoothening’ the laurel-branch] does not accurately
reflect the construction of a 1«: one had to sharpen, not merely
polish the branch.)
Zanetto (1996, 265) accepts the received text and explains this ellip-
tical description by assuming that the poet might not have had clear
knowledge of the process of kindling fire through fire-sticks. This may
be so, but it is conceivable that the poet aims at conveying that Hermes
operates with great speed. Therefore he presents the god’s actions in a
compressed fashion: he does not dwell on each stage of Hermes’ inven-
tions. In fact, each subsequent invention of Hermes is described in
fewer details; thus when at 511–12 he invents the pan-pipes, we are not
told where he found the material or the exact process of constructing
the instrument. Even the description of Hermes’ first invention, the tor-
toise-lyre, is elliptical, despite the fact that it is presented in more detail
Lines 109–110 321
than the invention of the fire-sticks (see 39–51n.). Hermes’ speed in this
section is furthermore evident by the fact that while he is in the process
of kindling the fire and throws branches on the ! 1« (112–13), he
goes into the cave and drags two cows (115–16), when he would norm-
ally have to blow on the incipient fire (cf. Thphr. Ign. 29 μ λ -
μ Cμ , λ « <1)« K 1 ) !-
")*« φ!!).
109–110 ‘Then, having taken a splendid branch of laurel that fitted into
his palm, he peeled (i.e. sharpened) it with an iron knife, and the warm
stream of fire breathed forth.’
φ « $!μ 2@ : the verse follows in explanatory asyndeton;
for other instances of asyndeton in the Hymn, see above, p. 48. The be-
ginning of this line is reminiscent of Hes. Th. 30–31 φ(« ()«
R& | 5!. Laurel wood is unanimously suggested by our
sources (cited in the introductory note) as ideal material for the 1-
, but there may be an additional point for its presence here: the
laurel was sacred to Apollo and thus, in addition to stealing Apollo’s
cattle, Hermes appropriately uses another object that belongs to Apollo
in myth to create (culinary) fire.
*&B ) %: (followed by AHS). For the sense of ),
cf. ) (Il. 1.236, Hdt. 8.115.2). Nordheider, LfgrE s.v. ),
suggests $)5, but this means in Homer ‘cut off’ (Il. 21.455 $-
)5 Κ /) ) ) and it only has the sense ‘peel’ in non-Homeric
Greek (cf. Hp. Morb. 2.22 [VII 36] * $), Ar. Av. 673,
%
) *…$)5.). Hermes is not merely removing the branch’s
bark but sharpening so that it can be used as a 1.
)% stands metonymically for a knife (or a similar tool) made
of iron.
110 Ν & 9 : a modified formula, used elsewhere of tools

(Il. 18.600 a wheel; Od. 5.234 an axe. In both examples it occurs at
verse-end in the form Ν )9 (!(), and its modification
and dislocation here explains the hiatus after )9 (). With this for-
mula the poet implicitly likes Hermes to a craftsman (cf. 49n., 52n.); but
this comparison may be humorous as well: Hermes picked a branch
that fit his little palm; thus this verse functions also as a reminder of the
god’s extremely young age.
322 Commentary
Ν is used in Homer in the sense ‘recover, regain one’s

consciousness’; the manuscripts sometimes vary between Ν
and 3-; cf. Il. 5.697, 11.359, 14.436, 22.222, 22.475, Od. 5.458,
24.349 and LfgrE, s.v. col. 1301.10–13. Here it means ‘breathe
forth’; cf. Pi. O. 8.36 $! *, A.R. 3.231 μ« !)«
$! , Thphr. HP 5.9.6 ξ ξ )),
Ν ! , —« φ(! M! , · /! λ )!
$.
"μ« $: ‘the warm breath (sc. of Hephaestus)’, hence
‘smoke’ or ‘fire.’ $7 may mean ‘breath’ (Il. 9.609 = 10.89), a pleas-
ant ‘odour’ (Il. 14.174, Od. 12.369), or a ‘gust of wind’ (Il. 18.471, from
the bellows; Od. 11.400). At Il. 21.366–67 ( # $κ | Hφ!
"(φ )1φ «) and at Od. 9.389–90 ( ¹ ")φ # $φλ
λ Sφ 1« i! $κ | )7(« («) it is used of fire; and
of smoke here and at Od. 16.290 = 19.9 ≈ 19.20 ( *« … $7; cf.
137 μ« $9
). μ« $7 recurs at Hes. Th. 696;
cf. Od. 6.122 (
)« $7), 12.369 (πL« $7 of the !(), and
Kastner (1967, 21–22).
111–112 A.R. 1.1182–84 (quoted on p. 115) may be inspired by this pas-

sage.
111 E« 6 # $ %: cf. 25n. This line
was unjustly bracketed by Matthiae 236, as a marginal comment “haud
dubie e lemmate marginali ortus, ut versus 25” (so, too, Gemoll). Once
again, the poet gives the answer to a riddle, as it were: the description of
the fire-sticks is too condensed, and 111 clears any question concerning
Hermes’ actions. The god furthermore is not presented as the absolute
inventor of fire (cf. 115 "( … Hφ!), but as the inventor of the
fire-sticks and culinary fire. The second hemistich is in effect a hendia-
dys (i.e. ‘fire created by means of the fire-sticks’).
occurs first here, and subsequently at S. Ph. 36, Pl. R. 435a
etc. (see introductory note).
$ is not found in Homer or Hesiod, but is elsewhere used
in later hexameter poetry of Gaia giving birth (Antim. 31.4–5 [with
Matthews ad loc.], Asius 8.2; cf. further Hdt. 3.18) or yielding crops
(e.g. Hp. Aër 12 [II 54], Thuc. 3.58.4, Plu. Cam. 15.2).
Lines 110–113 323
112–113 ‘And taking many dry, whole, logs, he piled them in abundance
in a pit in the ground.’
112 ! : ‘dry,’ related to , as Athanassakis (1976) argues.

) % & λ <") %: ) « occurs only here in early
poetry as an adjective; at [Hes.] fr. 150.18 it is an ethnic name. In Call.
Del. 142 « is Typhoeus; cf. I.Sestos 11.23 3
K« «.
For the hiatus at this sedes, cf. 12 ¹ )
λ ) ).
<" « (also called "*« or !/ ) was a pit used for offerings
to chthonic deities, heroes, or the ordinary dead (cf. Od. 10.517, 11.25,
11.36). The majority of these "* were often dug for the occasion,
were located outside the city boundaries, and were not used for official
rituals. The "* used in hero-cults, however, were of a more perma-
nent nature, being tied to a particular cult. Blood rituals took place in
such "* , and sometimes a victim was completely consumed by the
fire (enagisma), after which a regular thysia followed, accompanied by
ritual dining. See F. Robert (1939, 185–89), Stengel (1920, 16–17), Yavis
(1949, esp. 91–95), Burkert (1984, 837), and especially Ekroth (2002,
60–74). Jaillard (2007, 133) observes that the "* « which Hermes
digs has no ritual significance, but is simply a pit for roasting meat, simi-
lar to the "* found in Greek houses from the end of the 4th c. BC
on. However, even if "* « is intended here in such a ‘colorless’ sense,
it acquires some ritual significance by virtue of its mention among
Hermes’ actions here that have a quasi-ritual feel.
Notice the repetitions in 112–13: ») ) …
σ) )"Ω ( (.
113 σ ‘whole, entire’ has often been misunderstood, and Gemoll
proposed σ (‘dry’) instead, citing as a parallel Od. 18.308–309 λ
ξ <1)
, | σ ), (); however, the Odys-
sey empasizes the logs’ dryness (note in particular σ )), unlike
our passage, where Hermes is gathering logs which he presumably finds
in the vicinity. In Homer σ)« is used of wool or hair (= ‘curly’), but
never of wood. Buttmann (1860, 175) rightly explains it here as ‘entire,’
while AHS suggested that it may mean ‘bushy,’ i.e. logs with leaves and
twigs; cf. Williams on Call. Apol. 76. σ)« is used later as a technical
term in Theophrastus, where it functions as an attribute of wood
324 Commentary
(= ‘compact, tough, close-grained’; cf. LSJ s.v. σ)« (B) 3), an equiva-
lent of *«; cf. McKenzie (1925). But »)…σ) = ‘close-
grained’ would light with more difficulty, as W. Furley reminds me.
& : ‘in abundance’. For the scansion, cf. Hes. Op. 607 and
61n.
113–114 ‘and the flame shone from afar, emitting a stream of fire burn-
ing up high.’
114 should be taken $μ with both ) and ¹!.
φ : ‘blast of fire.’ D’Orville’s φ! (cf. E φ1!), conjectured
also by Clarke and Hemsterhuys, should be considered certain. AHS
suggested that the MSS φ1&, which in Homer means ‘flight,’ may be a
dialect form (perhaps Cretan) without adopting it in their text; but how
would a form of the Cretan dialect have found its way into this Hymn?
In Homer φ! are Hephaestus’ bellows (Il. 18.372, 409, 412, 468,
470), and φ1!« *« recurs in A.R. 4.763 in its Homeric sense. But
the word can also designate a gust of wind, hence here a stream of fire
(LSJ, s.v. II 1, 3). The poet’s use of φ!, even in the sense of ‘stream
of smoke’ is intriguing, since anyone attempting to kindle fire by means
of fire-sticks would have to blow on the fire, perhaps using bellows
(φ!!) or a similar device. As Zumbach 44–45 puts it: “the word in-
dicating the generator becomes the word indicating the thing generated,
and thus we obtain ‘flash of fire,’ ‘raging flame’.”
Notice the alliteration of the sibilants in ()*! φ! ¹!
*«. All these repetitive sound patterns that were noticed in these
verses (cf. 112n.) may aim at creating an incantatory effect, conjuring
up the impression that Hermes is using magic; cf. 82n.
115–141 Hermes kills two cows and roasts their meat

Hermes drags two of the animals out of the cave (116–17), kills them
(118–19), roasts their meat (120–23), and divides it into twelve equal
portions to each of which he adds a ) « (126–29). He also
stretches their hides on a rock in front of the cave where they can be
seen even today (124–26)! But when he attempts to partake of the meat,
he realizes that he is unable to consume it (130–33). He then burns
everything (134–37) and returns to his cave in Cyllene (138–41).
Lines 113–114, 115–141 325
One of the central questions raised by the Hymn concerns the

nature of Hermes’ actions in this part. Scholars have sometimes ap-
proached the god’s treatment of the cows as a sacrifice marking the
foundation of the cult of the Twelve Gods at Olympia that was tradi-
tionally ascribed to Heracles, and where, interestingly, Apollo and
Hermes shared an altar; cf. Pi. O. 5.4–6 χ« … | "L« ‘< 1«
' « !« | Kμ "!«, O. 10.24–25 χ
$ /) ! P)« | ") '< !!, O.
10.43–54, Herodor. FGrH 31 F 34a–b (on the shared altars), Paus.
5.14.8 ξ #A*))« λ E "*« ! ) ,
* E
)1 «, #A*)) ξ K κ ρ « E))7
!λ « CL« )*«, and Georgoudi (1998, 77). On the cult of the
Twelve Gods, see also Farnell, Cults I 84–5 with p. 177–78 n. 157 a–l,
Long (1987), and Rutherford (2010).
If Hermes’ actions are meant to represent a sacrifice, then it would
be a rather strange one for several reasons:
(i) None of the words associated with sacrifice are mentioned in this
passage: we do not find 1, &, , !φ& or the
like; cf. van Nortwick (1975, 108–10), who points out that “not only
does the poet neglect to include even one line from the Homeric feast/
sacrifice scenes, but he even seems at times willfully to avoid using an
obvious Homeric phrase.”
(ii) Hermes performs this ‘sacrifice’ at night and in a place that is
not consecrated; nothing separates sacred from profane space.
(iii) He kills two animals that he has stolen, rather than victims pre-
viously designated for sacrificial purposes.
(iv) He lights fire by means of the fire-sticks he invents, instead of
taking the fire from an altar; cf. Furley (1981, 39–40).
λ
(v) Instead of using an altar, he ‘sacrifices’ in a pit ( )
"* ) , 112n.) Pits are usually thought of as reserved for chthonic
deities, heroes, or the ordinary dead, and liquid offerings were poured
into them (though this view has been challenged by Ekroth [2002]). Of
course, nothing is said of such offerings in our text.
(vi) The preliminary actions (e.g. libations, C)/1) normally
preceding an Olympian sacrifice are also absent; contrast the effort
Odysseus’ men make on Thrinacia to perform these rites with whatever
material available to them at Od. 12.356–63; further A.R. 1.1110–25,
4.1714–20, and Durand (1986, 123–43), Jaillard (2007, 103–104 n. 20).
326 Commentary
(vii) The way in which Hermes kills the two animals does not reflect
the procedure followed in an Olympian sacrifice, but actually recalls the
killing of the tortoise: () in both cases the animals’ @ is pierced
(note 42 <* (! ~ 119 () … 7!«) and (") neither action
seems to require much effort on Hermes’ part: the tortoise is carried
into the cave as a mere plaything (an Ν ), while the infant god ea-
sily drags the two cows, since as we are told he had great strength (117);
see Croci (1977–78, 178). Nothing is said about the instrument Hermes
uses to kill the cows (normally a ) « or / ; cf. Durand
[1986, 103–15]).
(viii) We do not hear anything explicit about the victims’ blood:
does Hermes let it flow into the "* «? Or does he collect it in a
!φ (cf. Ekroth [2002, 244–47] with images)? Judging by 122–23
( λ ) s | /)!!; see n. ad loc.), he must
have collected the blood in some vessel in order to make blood sausa-
ges.
(ix) Nothing is said of the flaying of the two cows; contrast Il. 1.459,
2.422, Od. 12.359, all belonging to a typical scene. The flaying is im-
plied at 124–26.
(x) The victim’s entrails would be roasted first (by a splanchnoptes:
the term occurs at Plin. Nat. 22.44 and 34.81 of a young, home-born
slave [vernula] of Pericles) and were consumed on the spot (cf. e.g., Il.
1.464, 2.427, Od. 3.9, 3.40, van Straten [1995, 131–33]), something that
is not reflected in Hermes’ ‘sacrifice.’
(xi) It is often thought that the sacrificer would make an effort to
ensure that the victim assented to its own killing (e.g. by throwing bar-
ley C)/1 in front of it so that it lowers its head, thereby ‘willingly’
submitting to its death), though this is not reflected in the iconography
of the sacrifice; cf. van Straten (1995, 100–102) and Naiden (2007). But
here the situation is different: the cows are panting (φ!*!« 118),
which presumably reflects their resistance to their treatment.
(xii) There is not even a single mention of bones wrapped in fat, the
usual share of the gods in an Olympian sacrifice; instead, the gods re-
ceive the same share of the victim as humans do, i.e. portions of meat,
which (initially at least) are not burned but roasted as if they were
meant to be consumed by humans. Cf. Furley (1981, 38–51).
For these reasons, Kahn (1978, 41–73) considers the events at the
Alpheios a pseudo-sacrifice. Burkert (1984, esp. 837–38), on the other
Lines 115–141 327
hand, points out that there are parallels in cult for most of Hermes’ ac-
tions in this scene, even for those that seem most unusual. However,
these parallels are not attested in a single ritual, but are found indepen-
dently in a variety of contexts, and therefore Burkert further hypothe-
sizes the existence of an unknown festival in honour of Hermes, during
which the Hymn (and the ritual) would have been performed. Such a
ritual is not attested, however, and the unparalleled coexistence of these
disparate ritual elements is striking indeed.
This leads Clay Politics 119–22 to propose a different interpre-
tation: Hermes’ action at the Alpheios is not a sacrifice, but a dais
‘feast.’ The emphasis in our passage lies heavily on the way the meat is
distributed: each of the twelve participants receives a portion by lot
( )( )« 129), which suggests that all of them have equal status;
and to each portion, a ) «, normally reserved for the most
distinguished among the banqueters, is added.
Feasting and sacrificing were of course connected in ancient prac-
tice, but to call Hermes’ ‘ritual’ a sacrifice would be misleading; it is
perhaps better to speak not of a sacrifice but of a different form of com-
mensality, the trapezoma or theoxenia (on the terminology, see Gill
[1991, 11–12]). In this ritual action, offerings were made on a cult-table
(trapeza) for the gods who assumed the role of the xenos; see Od.
14.418–38, where Eumaeus sets aside a portion for Hermes and the
Nymphs, Kadletz (1984), Petropoulou (1987), Gill (1991, 11–15,
19–23), Bruit (1999, 170–72), Ekroth (2002, 276–86), Leduc (2005,
esp. 158–59), and Jaillard (2007, 114–18). The god was the recipient of
both the smoke from the burned bones and fat and the meat normally
reserved for humans. In this way the humans shared their table with the
gods, and the gods were thought to come to closer contact with the hu-
mans. Some of the portions laid out on the theoxenia table would be de-
stroyed by fire afterwards; cf. Ekroth (2002, 219). Theoxenia rituals
were more common privately, and Hermes’ dais in the Hymn seems to
be a private affair. This of course does not mean that there were no pub-
lic theoxenia (as e.g. the Delphic theoxenia festival); but such a ritual
was more affordable for private individuals since it often involved veg-
etable offerings; cf. Ekroth (2002, 284). Judging by the sacrifice of Eu-
maeus in Odyssey 14, the victim’s thighs were not burned separately for
the gods nor were the innards consumed at the beginning of the ritual.
Furthermore, there was a piece constituting the « that was re-
328 Commentary
served for the guest of honour (in this case Odysseus in disguise). Fin-
ally, the flat stone ()@) that Hermes uses at 128 can be under-
stood as a primitive & or cult-table, though normally on these
tables, which regularly had depressions in their surface, unburnt offer-
ings were deposited; cf. Gill (1991, 2, 23–25); on the use of & and
"*«, see also Durand (1986, 116–23).
The uniqueness of Hermes’ action at the Alpheios lies in the fact
that it operates on several levels simultaneously:
(i) By dividing the meat so as to emphasize the equality of the par-
ticipants, Hermes inserts himself into the Olympian order as an equal
among equals.
(ii) Through the trapezoma/theoxenia he consecrates the cows
that he stole and invites the rest of the gods, including Apollo, to whom
the stolen cattle belonged, to have a share (for the consecration of
the meat through the trapezoma, cf. Plu. fr. 95 = Hes. Op. 748–49,
and Weinreich [1937, 828–29], who emphasizes the humour of this
scene).
(iii) In his capacity as the administrator of the ‘ritual’ (playing the
role of the ¹ 1«), Hermes would receive the gods’ portions as his own
prerogative, as several Sacred Laws explicitly state (see Gill [1991,
15–19]). In other words, Hermes offers to the rest of the Olympians the
meat that according to ritual prescriptions he would end up keeping for
himself!
(iv) More important, this feast is also a test for Hermes himself
since it reveals his divine identity. When Hermes attempts to consume
his portion of the meat, as the host of a theoxeny would normally do, he
fails: gods do not eat meat; cf. Clay Politics 118–22 who speaks of
Hermes’ ‘identity crisis.’ Thereafter, he burns the meat, since this is the
way in which gods receive offerings. Hermes thus embodies two roles at
the same time: his is both the host of the theoxeny or trapezoma (i.e. a
mortal) and its recipient (i.e. a god).
However, Georgoudi (1996, 68–70), while relating Hermes’ actions
here to a trapezoma, suggests that the young god’s status is not at stake
at any moment since both his parents are divine and he is called divine
in the poem. In her view, Hermes’ abstinence from eating meat is not
to be attributed to the difference between the human and divine diet,
but to the fact that he already is one of the Twelve Gods who function
as a group in an organized fashion. Thus Hermes could not start eating
Lines 115–141, 115–119 329
alone before the other gods had arrived. But the text does not support
such an interpretation: the smell of the roasted meat was tormenting
Hermes, even though he is a god ( λ $* * 131), which
implies that as a god he should not be craving meat. Furthermore, C#
—« ¹ *« … » ¹
«
« (132–33) does not
indicate Hermes’ table manners but the fact that as a god he is unable to
partake of meat.
(v) Finally, in this section Hermes inaugurates some of his tradi-
tional functions: when dividing the meat, he acts as a
<, the at-
tendant to a sacrifice; cf. Zeus’s comment in 331 that Hermes has a
φκ 7 «; Simon (1953, 7, 94 n. 2), P. Zanker (1965, 33–34),
Mondi (1978), Jaillard (2007, 158 n. 126). Note that Hermes pours
wine for the gods at Sapph. 141:
# $" !« ξ | ( -
# | 5E « # 3) R) (‘flask’) !# /*(!. |
# Ν
« | /!# _/ | Ν)"· $ ! ξ 3!)
" ) (cf. Alc. 447); and on a cup by Douris, (Vatican 35089)
Hermes is represented as roasting meat on an altar. In performing this
action, Hermes is enacting the role of the «: according to Pl.
Euthd. 301c a « was responsible for !φ λ
λ *5 Q5 λ S»; cf. Clei(to)demus
of Athens FGrH 323 F 5 3 ¹ 7 « Ν/ )) "-
«, φ(!, λ ! &« λ !1))« (‘cutting up’), 3
# /«, Berthiaume (1982), and Johnston and Mulroy (2009,
14–15). And by distributing the meats by means of lot, he enacts his
role as the patron god of lots; cf. Suda 1785 )
« E : !-
() $ /) 3")) ¹ )( « « K )« φ1)), χ
!(* E
· λ <9 7 , κ ) )
1( $«· )/ ξ ² μ *; Jaillard (2007,
126 with n. 143).
115–119 ‘While the might of famous Hephaestus was lighting up the

fire, at that time Hermes dragged two of the cows with curved horns
that were below ground level [i.e. in the cave] towards the entrance of
the cave, towards the fire – and great was his strength; he threw both of
them, panting, on their backs. After he had pierced through their mar-
row (= spine?), he leant on them and rolled them …’
330 Commentary
115 $ : lighting up a fire is an action performed normally by a

mortal, sometimes preparatory to cooking food (as here); cf. Od. 7.13,
10.358, 20.123, 21.181 (attendants); Od. 9.308 (Polyphemus); h.Dem.
287 (Metaneira’s daughter). The expression is found often in prose e.g.
Hdt. 4.145.3, Xen. An. 3.1.3, Luc. DMar. 2.2, Long. 3.9.4, Hld. 2.22.2.
At AP 12.79.2 (= HE 3695; anonymous) it refers to the fire kindled by
love.
< Hφ : the components of this clausula are tradi-
tional (for "( + genitive of a proper name or "( + possessive adjective,
as "( H )((, cf. Il. 2.658, 3.105, 4.386, 5.781, 13.758, 17.24,
17.187, 18.117, 20.307, 23.859, Od. 11.290, 11.601, 21.253–54, Hes. Th.
289; for ) Hφ!, cf. [Hes.] Sc. 244*); but as a whole, this
verse-end does not occur elsewhere. The clausula, which is a periphrasis
for ‘fire,’ points to a humorous incongruity: the new-born Hermes has
just invented a method of producing the gift of glorious Hephaestus. In
other words, Hermes functions here as a facilitator. Notice that Hermes
has already been compared to Hephaestus twice during his previous
invention of the lyre (cf. 49n. and 52n.)
116 φ (): another instance of apodotic ; cf. 118.

D <5«: ‘below the surface’ (of the earth), as they were hidden
in the cave; cf. [A.] Pr. 1082–83 " / # /Ω » | "
«,
Pl. Phdr. 248a (¹ ξ Ν)) 5/, π ξ Ν ! ) '( λ -
!( K
« μ 3< * κ π*/ φ)7 … π
ξ ξ ξ _ , ξ # 3, "& ξ b ξ ρ,
# Κ. ¹ ξ κ Ν)) )/* ξ Ϊ! Ν Q,
$! , K" 1/ (“i.e. on the lower, interior side of the
membrane of the heavenly sphere through which the souls must emerge
to see the super-heavenly realm,” Yunis ad loc.) ! φ , -
! $))7)« λ "))!, ' μ
« ' « (
!), LSJ s.v. K" 1/« II, and Casevitz and Skoda (1985)
42–43. K" ˘/« was considered inappropriate here because it was
thought to mean ‘underwater.’ Hence emendations were proposed,
on the assumption that the root of " /»! must be present in
this verse. (Beekes, s.v. points out that a pun between " 1/« and
" /»! is sometimes found.) Thus, Ludwich offered K" 1/«
(‘lowing softly’); but cf. 1 « at 105 (see below). AHS suggested
K" /«, but such synizesis of -- appears in Homer to be con-
Lines 115–117 331
fined to proper names; see Kühner I, 1 227 and Radermacher (1928–29,

257–59).
The prefix K- furthermore was thought to contradict 1 «
of 105; thus Shackle (1915, 161) proposed Kμ " /« ‘to the sound of
bellowing’ though recognizing that " /7 is not used in this sense in
epic until Opp. Hal. 2.530. Barnes and Gemoll preferred " 1/«,
and D’Orville K " /«. Finally, West (2003b) prints K φ«
(‘that were under shelter’). But the sense of K φ« can be con-
veyed by K" /« (cf. the examples cited at the beginning of this
note). Besides, in its only occurrence in early hexameter (Il. 9.640), it
means ‘under the roof’ (sc. of Achilles’ hut), i.e. in a constructed dwell-
ing and not a cave; so too at Pi. P. 1.97, ‘Simon.’ AP 6.2.2 (= FGrE 757),
Ar. Ra. 1313, Theoc. 14.39, A.R. 3.293, 4.168, Mosch. 2.6 (with Camp-
bell’s n.), Hegesipp. AP 6.124.1–2 (= HE 1897–98).
Z« < «: this phrase is generally found as part of a larger for-
mula ()« Q) « "«) that normally occupies the last section
of the verse (Il. 9.466, 23.166, Od. 1.92 = 4.320, 9.46, Hes. Op. 795,
[Hes.] fr. 198.11 [suppl.]). On the meaning of Q) «, see 192n.
"*« could be read here as at Od. 11.289 where Q) « "« occurs
in the same sedes.
U: there is no compelling reason to change to Q) with Wolf
and Gemoll although both forms would have been spelled E[KE at the
time of the Hymn’s composition.
Sacrificial victims are sometimes depicted as being dragged to the
altar by means of ropes; see van Straten (1995, 100–2). What mattered
most in a sacrifice was the animal’s vitality and not its ‘consent,’ as
Naiden (2007) shows.
Notice the alliteration between Q) « and s) .
"'@ ‘towards the entrance’ (sc. of the cave); this word need not
imply the existence of a door (cf. Il. 5.694, 16.408, Od. 5.410). However,
the audience may be reminded of 26 # C)9 (! 1 9(! of Hermes’
cave and 36 1 (φ; cf. Od. 9.444 8!« $ μ« 7) 3!/
1 & (at Polyphemus’ cave) and 9.461.
117 Ν!5 «: in its other occurrence in archaic epic, Od. 11.191*, this
phrase designates the fire of the hearth, near which Laertes sleeps. Here
it is the fire that was probably in front of, rather than in, the "* «; cf.
Ekroth (2002, 60–74).
332 Commentary
' « ¹ 0 : this is the poet’s expression of admi-

ration for Hermes’ abilities, and it contrasts with the god’s claim that he
is too weak to be a cattle-rustler at 265 and 377. This clause is a paren-
thetic comment (cf. 80n.).
Van Herwerden (1888, 75) approved of Stadtmüller’s Q! for
3) (cf. 426 7 ¹ Q! φ7; [Hes.] fr. 141.18 [)]κ ¹
Q! 7), but the transmitted reading has good parallels; cf. Il.
14.158 ! μ« ¹ 3) ) , [Hes.] fr. 239.2 ρ« ¹ 3)
«; further A.R. 1.1249 )( ¹ 3) $7.
118 $φ «: cf. 117 «; the poet emphasizes that both cows
received the same treatment from Hermes, which gives additional point
to his comment about Hermes’ great strength.
φ 6«: in Homer this participle is used of horses tired from
battle (Il. 4.227*, 16.506*). Here it implies that the cows do not wil-
lingly submit to their immolation. See, however, 116n. on s) .
119 &! % is here intransitive; cf. LfgrE, s.v. ), col. 1449 and
Breuning (1929, 86–87). Hermes turns the cows on their backs after he
kills them (cf. 7!«), presumably to cut their meat up. It should be
pointed out that Hermes dispatches the animals in a way that does not
reflect the normal (Olympian) sacrificial practice of lifting the victim’s
head and slitting its throat; cf. Il. 1.459 = 2.422 C !, van Straten
(1995, 107–13), Ekroth (2002, 273). In Athens by the 2nd c. BC it was the
ephebes’ duty to lift the bull while its throat was cut; cf. Diggle on Thphr.
Char. 27.5. However, Hermes transfixes the cows’ @ instead of cut-
ting through their throats (as Apollo assumes at 405). Notice the alli-
teration between ) and 1).
() … «: ‘pierce through’ occurs only here
and in very late authors or in scholiasts and grammarians: Agath.
Hist. B 7.4 (p. 49 Keydell), : 19.4 (p. 146 Keydell), Nicetas Choniates,
Hist. p. 106.1, 364.37 (van Dieten), Johannes Cinnamus, Epitom.
p. 160.13 (Meineke), Hsch. 340, Sud. 792, Eust. Il. IV 526
(p. 1243), though « (‘piercing,’ ‘penetrating,’ hence ‘loud’)
occurs in classical authors (A. Eu. 567, [A.] Pr. 79, 181, Tim.
791.147). For the reduplicated aorist «, cf. the future at Ar.
Pax 381 7! (‘speak, loudly, clearly’) with Olson ad loc.;
further, Chantraine, GH I 415–16 § 198, who considers $* (!
Lines 117–120 333
(Il. 5.337) and $ 7!« (Il. 10.267]) as more recent forms com-
pared to 3 .
+- «: (spinal) marrow, i.e. Hermes is not simply cutting the ani-
mals’ throat, but is piercing through their spine and presumably cuts
their head off; on @, cf. 42n. It is doubtful whether Hermes used his
)1φ to kill the two cows, as Allen (1895, 286) and Johnston and
Mulroy (2009) suggest.
The claim in AS that Hermes used a method of killing the animals
similar to modern pole-axing, as well as the parallel they adduce
(Il. 17.520–23 where a ) « is used), is misleading. As Olsen (2006,
259–60) explains this procedure in killing domesticated horses, “pole-
axing usually involves three persons or at least one person and two
posts firmly set in the ground. Normally, two people hold the end of
lassos that are wrapped around the neck of the horse and pull them taut
on either side of the standing beast. In this position it is not easy to step
backward or to move out of harm’s way. A third person then ap-
proaches with a pole-ax, ideally killing it in one stroke … The weapon
typically leaves a large, depressed fracture in the frontal bones” (see
also her figs. 17.4 and 17.5). While the fact of Hermes performing this
task alone would not constitute a serious objection (he has great
strength, after all!), his ‘piercing through their marrow’ and rolling
them argues decisively against this method of killing.
120 0!) % # 0! 2@: cf. Hes. Op. 382 3 # 3 ) &!,
where Hesiod admonishes his brother to work hard, accomplishing one
task after another so that he may increase his wealth. Contrary to the
Hesiodic passage, the digamma is operative in h.Herm. Is the Hymn poet
perhaps drawing on an older proverbial phrase with operating digamma
and formulated as an imperative, i.e. 3 ) 3 R&, as D’Alessio
(2005, 231 n. 57) suggests?
At any rate, the expression is employed here in a different context
(carving meat) and with S& instead of &!, a verb nor-
mally accompanied by « or R)"«, i.e. precisely those things
Hermes is after (cf., for instance, Il. 8.141, 12.255, 15.327, Od. 3.57,
15.320, 19.161, Hes. Th. 420, 438, Sol. 19.5, A.R. 1.345, 1.511, Rhian.
1.9 [= p. 9 CA]; Ar. Eq. 200 is a parodistic use of this formula); see Fern-
ández-Delgado (1990, 213).
D’Alessio (2005, 231) suggests that Pi. I. 6.66–69 quotes Hes. Op.
334 Commentary
382 and “reformulates the sentence in such a way that resonates with
the echo … of h.Herm. 120.”
) -: cf. 127 3 . Interestingly, the meat and en-
trails which Prometheus reserves for men are also () (Hes.
Th. 538). For a comparison between Hermes’ presentation in the Hymn
and Hesiod’s Prometheus, see p. 68–69.
121–128 The poet varies the Homeric phraseology used when roasting
meat from a sacrifice; cf. Il. 1.465–66 $φ# S")! 3 , | c(!
φ « 1!* (cf. Il. 2.428–29, Od. 14.430–31);
Od. 3.65–66 ¹ # λ c(! # K λ 1!, | «
!! # , Od. 19.422–23 # S")-
! | c(! φ « !!* «; cf. Od. 3.470,
20.279, [Hes.] fr. 316.
121 $φ# >< ) : « occurs else-

where in archaic poetry as an epithet describing the Trojan Horse (Od.
8.492–93, 512 both at line-beginning).
Spits (S")) were normally made of metal (cf. Bruns [1970, 31–34,
47]); Hermes’ use of wooden spits may be another instance of his skill at
improvisation: since there were no metal spits available, he fabricated
wooden ones.
The roasting of the meat on the S")*« took place after the %-
and the consumption of the entrails (cf. Il. 1.461–66, 2.424–29, Od.
3.458–63, 12.361–65, 14.427–33). The entrails (!)/, 3 )
were roasted before the rest of the animal’s meat was consumed and
were eaten on the spot; see NGSL 11.24n. Here, however, Hermes
roasts both the flesh and the entrails on the spits.
« is used of studded swords (Il. 1.246, 11.633), animals
wounded by a weapon or another animal’s claws (Il. 21.577, Hes.
Op. 205) or metaphorically (Il. 5.399, Archil. 193.3 [S19 (!],
Emp. 112.125, A.R. 4.1067 [$φ# S19 (!]). Here we have a modifica-
tion of $φ# S")! 3 (quoted above).
Notice the homoeoteleuton in S")! … !.
5 <$φ# S19

(!> Bergk; <$φλ *!> Diels; <$φλ φ*"!> Galla-
votti.
Lines 120–122 335
122 «: designates the flesh of a sacrificial victim in Hes. Th. 538;
cf. LSCG 103B7, LSAM 24A16 (where « ! « means ‘three por-
tions of meat’), and LSS 19.33.
- !: ! « occurs here for the first time, and sub-
sequently at A. fr. 47a.6 ³« !, E. Ph. 923 !
/*«, Supp. 95–96 3 ! | R!! (Euripides seems
to associate !« with
«); further [Orph.] A. 626, Nic. Th.
613, Opp. Hal. 2.655 ! … 7. It means ‘possessing/com-
manding honour’ (Aeschylus, Euripides, Nicander) or ‘confering hon-
our upon the recipient’ (Oppian, [Orph.], and our example). Zum-
bach 15 considers it a Reimbildung based on !«.
The - (‘back’) were thought of as an honorific portion ( «);
see LSCG 96.7, 12, 30–31, 151A.52–53, LSS 10A.41, NGSL 20.7 (with
commentary on p. 309–10; cf. also 3.5n.), Meuli (1946, 223 with n. 3),
and Jaillard (2007, 112 with n. 64). In a sacrifice the « was usually
the priestly prerogative and consisted in a part of the sacrificed animal
(a thigh, leg, skin; in Chios also the tongue. The tongue was sometimes
given to the herald; cf. Furley [1996, 24–25] and Corn. ND p. 21, 3–5).
The « could sometimes be money. Cf. LSCG 151A.56–59, LSAM
13.13–15 )" ξ (sc. μ 3/ κ ¹ !1() | λ
¹ ) ¹ ) | , ! )« <μ λ
λ Ν)) | &@ | [«
][«], 32.53–54, 44, 45.8–9, 46.7, 48.16, 49B30, 70.5, LSS 129.1–7.
U: in Homer this phrase designates the blood spilt from a
wound (Il. 4.149, 20.470, 23.806); cf. Il. 10.298, 10.469 # 3 λ
) s, 18.583 (two lions 3 λ ) s )φ1!!),
Od. 3.455 (the blood of a sacrificed animal). Normally, in an ‘Olym-
pian’ sacrifice the blood was allowed to flow down from the altar. It
might be gathered in a special vessel, called !φ (cf. I.Orop. 319.4;
IG II2 1424a.145; E. El. 800, Ar. Th. 754–55) or $ (Od. 3.444), and
be consumed later; or it might be let flow into the "* «, thus func-
tioning as an invitation to the dead heroes to participate in a theoxenia
ritual; cf. Od. 3.455, Stengel (1910, 18–19), Meuli (1946, 221), Ekroth
(2002, 247–51, 266), and Ekroth (2005, esp. 14–19).
The blood is treated here in a culinary rather than a ritual manner,
as Larson (2005, 12) points out. Hermes is making blood sausages, but
again we are missing crucial information: the blood would have to be
whipped immediately to avoid coagulation, it would then be mixed with
336 Commentary
a filler (flour, fat, and seasoning) and finally stuffed into a casing,
usually the animal’s intestines. These had to be cleaned of course, but
the cleaning was not permitted within sacred space; see Németh (1994).
These actions would take up a considerable amount of time, but the
poet telescopes the events in just one verse. For the blood sausages (or
black pudding), cf. the ¹ mentioned in the Sacred Laws: LSCG
151A52 (= Rhodes and Osborne no. 62; given to the heralds), 156A29;
LSAM 44.12; or the / κ ¹«, on which see Dalby (2003, 294)
and Frost (1999, 246–50).
123 &! : a perfect participle (from 3 < , F ). Its
meaning here approaches that attested in medical authors where it refers
to liquids retained in the interior: Hp. Mul. 4 (VIII 26), 8 (VIII 36), 25
(VIII 68)
& 5 : /)« ‘entrails,’ are found twice in Homer: a war-
rior is stabbed near the navel and his entrails fall on the ground (Il.
4.526, 21.181 /1 /λ /)«). /)« are also the material
from which the strings of a lyre are made (cf. AP 11.352.11–12 Agathias
Scholasticus | < R« /) Ν -
! (‘dried up together, in a mass’). Here it means the cows’ intes-
tines.
123–126 ‘These things (i.e. the cuts of meat, the pieces from the animals’
backs, and the entrails) were lying there on the spot; and he stretched
out the cow-hides on a rugged rock, just as they exist thereafter, even
now, for many years, a long and incalculable time after these events.’
123 : … &λ 56«: ‘there, on the spot’; cf. LSJ s.v. /@ I 2.
124 G 4« # &8 : for W*«, see 48n.

For <!!, cf. Od. 23.201 ( # !!# ¹ "*«, where
# … is found as v.l.) Pi. P. 4.242.
On the treatment of the victim’s hide, see Hdt. 7.26.3, X. Anab. 1.2.8
quoted below (both mention Marsyas’ skin flayed and hung by Apollo,
in X. it hangs in a cave), Burkert (1997, 14 with n. 29) and idem (1984,
837 with n. 17). The hide of the sacrificial victim was often given to the
priests or sold; cf. Ar. Th. 758 (with Austin-Olson ad loc.), LSAM 22.6,
NGSL, p. 72 with n. 364, Sacconi (1967, 133 n. 149). But sometimes the
Lines 122–124 337
hide of a sacrificial victim was hung; cf. D.Chr. 1.53, Long. 2.30.5 (the
hide is hung on a tree and dedicated to the Nymphs, in whose honour
the sacrifice was made), 2.31.3 (μ ξ ! C« (<
9
= μ« ) $), μ $( ) ), sc.
to Pan), AP 6.114 (= HE 3262–67), 6.115 (= HE 482–89), 6.116 (= HE
3256–61). Alternatively the hide was destroyed by burning or cutting
up; cf. Ekroth (2002, 223).
Scholars have assumed that a local aition, i.e. a strange rock
formation, underlies our passage (see AHS ad loc.). But what kind
of rock formation would resemble stretched ox-hides? Müller (1833)
implausibly identified these stretched hides with stalactite formations.
However, Hermes stretches the cow-hides outside the cave, he does not
hang the hides in the cave; hence there cannot be any reference to stala-
ctites here; contrast X. Anab. 1.2.8: ) #A*)) -
M !1 7!« & ¹ λ !φ« λ μ -
! ) Ν ) … The verse is more likely to reflect the practice of
stretching the victims’ hides which would be periodically replaced by
new ones; this might have led to the interpretation on the part of the be-
lievers that the custom of hanging or stretching the hides of sacrificial
victims had been inaugurated once upon a time by Hermes himself. The
god’s action here constitutes the mythological antecedent (i.e. an aition)
for a contemporary practice, but the young god also anticipates his up-
coming confrontation with Apollo: the hides are the only sign of
Hermes’ killing the two cows that is left for Apollo to see (cf. 403–404).
The poet’s comment regarding the ox-hides momentarily transposes
us from the narrative’s mythic time to his own time and may also have a
metapoetic significance: the bard speaks about these ancient ox-hides
with authority and emphasis, as if he had seen them outside the cave,
which in turn would generate the impression in the audience that the ac-
count of the god’s story offered in the Hymn is true and authoritative.
φ) % & λ 9 : cf. Hes. Th. 806 !φ)
/@ (West ad loc. compares !φ)*« and suggests that perhaps the
adjective should be accented !φ)*«). Notice that the Hesiodic
passage too describes the founding of an institution (the use of the
Stygian water as the great oath of the gods) that took place a long time
before the narrative; cf. %1 at Hes. Th. 806 and the accumulation
of temporal markers that emphasize the long time that has passed since
the events in h.Herm. 125–26.
338 Commentary
For the hiatus at !φ)) , cf. 21 (¹ )

).
There is no need to emend to (thus Barnes, who compared 404;
so too Burkert [1997, 22 n. 18]: can be used in the sense of ‘on’ or ‘at’
(cf. LSJ, s.v. I 4), even when a verb implying motion is used (ibid. I 8).
125 ³« 0 : cf. 508 (= et [= etiam] nunc). This phrase is typically

found in etiological passages; cf. e.g. 508 ³« 3 λ , A.R. 1.1354,
2.526, 4.534, Opp. C. 3.80, D.P. 950, Phanocl. 1.28 CA, Plu. 244a,
968f, Ant.Lib. 32.5, 36.2, 37.6 Parth. 26.4; cf. Courtney (2003, 293)
on Aemilius Macer 1, and Fantham on Ov. F. 4.494 (hinc … nunc
quoque).
3 : cf. Od. 9.221 !! ‘those born later’; !!
is M’s reading, accepted by Müller (1833, 314). The adverb’s formation
can be explained by analogy with > 3!!; cf. Hecat. FGrH 1 F
363, Call. fr. inc. 735, Hsch. 5214, An.Ox. I 280.
5 : cf. AP 7.509.2 (Simon.; = FGrE 1021, Peek 76), Hdt.
1.55.1, Pl. Phd. 87d, 95c, Tht. 194d. The meaning is ‘lasting many
years, i.e. for a long time, ancient.’ )/ *« is not found in Homer
or Hesiod, but cf. / * at Hes. Th. 269 and S)/ * at
Mimn. 5.4, Thgn. 1020. See Bulloch on Call. Lav.Pall. 128.
φ': this form occurs in archaic epic at this sedes and refers to
plants; cf. Il. 4.484 ($ ¹ R& # $ 9 ( φ1!), Od.
7.127–28 ( ! … | φ1!), 9.141 ( λ # F φ1!);
cf. A.R. 2.733, [Theoc.] 25.20. Hes. Th. 728 has
« W& φ1! λ
$ )!!(«.
126 Ν : not ‘unceasing, continual’ (LSJ, s.v. Ν « A I 2), but

‘impossible to judge or calculate’ (sc. how much time has elapsed since
these events). West prints $ « (‘in a fused mass’).
127 *5φ% : ‘of joyous mind’; cf. Hermes’ appellation / -

@(«// *(« (h.Hom. 18.12, Plu. 303d). / *φ occurs only
in Hsch. / 209 (/ *φ ² E
«), whence Stephanus imported it
into the text instead of the MSS’ / φ . This seems especially
plausible in view of the fact that many entries in Hesychius are formed
on the principle of the “coppia contigua,” according to which two words
found close to each other in a literary text were not perceived merely as
synonyms but as equivalent to each other, and were hence treated as
Lines 124–128 339
lemma and explicatio; see Marzullo (1968). It has been suggested that
lexicographers and commentators seem to have ignored the Homeric
Hymns (e.g. AHS lxxix), and / *φ , if rightly imported into the
text, would be one of the rare exceptions.
+' : cf. Il. 1.466 1!* (drawing the meat
from the fire). 1!, the reading in [ is unmetrical; cf. Il. 4.186
Ῠ !. Here Hermes draws the meat from the fire and deposits it on
λ )).
a flat rock ())
0!: reminds us of 17 where Hermes’ actions in the Hymn
are collectively announced as ) 3 .
This formula is elsewhere used metaphorically of rich, fertile land
(Il. 12.283, Od. 4.318, h.Dem. 93). Here, however, retains its
proper meaning ‘fat’ as it describes the meat; cf. 120 ().
The poet thus re-literalizes a formula that is elsewhere used metaphori-
cally; see Fernández-Delgado (1990, 210). The use of 3 for the cows’
meat can be distantly paralleled by / 7 (= ‘cattle’) at 400.
128 ) % &λ - : )@ appears here for the first time,
and the phrase )) λ ) recurs at A.R. 1.365*. Clauss (1993,
69–70) implausibly detects an allusion to h.Herm. 112–29 in A.R.
363–401; the phrase need not be more than a verbal echo; see above,
p. 113.
6 is a low, flat stone found by the shore; Gal. XIX 131
defines it as 3φ)« ), 7, λ p )1
1; cf. Hsch. 2472. A )@ was then the kind of stone
Hermes would naturally find near a river, and once again we see
him making the most of the material available around him; cf. 68–86n.
λ 05 6 «: For dividing portions of food, cf. Od.
3.66, 20.280 « !!, 15.140 «, 19.423
!!* «, Hes. Th. 544 (' &7)«) !! «.
The twelve portions call to mind the cult of the Twelve Gods at
Olympia (the fact that the ritual takes place near Olympia contributes
to this identification). Six altars were used in this ritual, each shared by
two gods, and Apollo is said to have shared an altar with Hermes. In
Hermes’ action at the Alpheios, however, there is no indication that
anything is being shared: the young god prepares twelve individual por-
tions. Furley (1981, 43) speaks of “a deliberate abuse of the local cus-
tom” in h.Herm.; see also above, p. 325–26.
340 Commentary
Does Hermes envision himself as one of the Twelve here? Rader-

macher thought that the poet worked with a tradition that did not in-
clude Hermes among the Olympians. Càssola, on the other hand, points
out that Hermes had not yet been accepted in the ranks of the Olym-
pians. It is true that while the number of the gods was fixed at twelve,
some cities included different gods in this group; cf. Georgoudi (1996),
Long (1987, esp. 152–86). There is also evidence that some gods were
celebrated in the same festival both individually and as members of the
twelve-god pantheon; cf. Jameson (1994, 42), Georgoudi (1998). For
the Hymn’s audience Hermes is naturally one of the Twelve. At the
mythical time when this action is taking place, however, Hermes has
not yet been admitted into the Olympian pantheon; nevertheless, he
considers that he has every right to belong there: the reason for his ac-
tions up to this point has been his desire that his status be acknow-
ledged by the rest of the gods. Since he views himself as belonging to the
Twelve, he therefore rightfully participates in the feast and attempts to
consume one of the twelve portions at 130.
129 * )«: for the formation, cf. Il. 3.316 )7 « … )),
7.171 )7 ) … )!, and 23.353. The distribution of the
portions by lot points to the equal status of the participants in the feast.
Hermes was the patron god of lot, and there was a custom, named
E )
«, on which, see 116–41n. (p. 329), Eitrem (1906, 258),
and Olson on Ar. Pax 365.
For distributing portions by lot, cf. LSAM 50.34–36, Plu.
642e–644d, Jaillard (2007, 126 with n. 143). In Athens the meat from
a sacrifice would be distributed to the common people by lot; cf. Kahn
(1978, 62). In I.Beroia 1 B 65–6 and LSCG 98.12–14 (Ceos) the raw sac-
rificial meat is divided into portions of equal weight, which are then
cooked and distributed; see Sokolowski’s note (LSCG p. 192).
… !«: Homer has )« (Il. 8.247 = 24.315; cf. h.Herm.
526), while )« is found in Hdt. 6.57.2 (¹ 7 )) and recurs in
sacrifical contexts (Il. 1.66, 24.34) and the Sacred Laws (= a victim that
is ‘full-grown’ and ‘perfect, i.e. without blemish’); cf. NGSL 1.9n.
The !« is the part given to the gods (cf. Kahn [1978, 62–3], Jay-
Robert [1999, 14]) or their representatives, the priests. A human partici-
pant at a trapezoma could also be honored by a choice cut; cf. Od.
14.437–38 @! # #O!
( !! | $ *«
Lines 128–130 341
K*«, 1 ξ μ Ν «. The addition of a ‘perfect cut of ho-
nour’ to each portion points once again that none of the participants in
this dais is more privileged than the others.
130 ²« % : ‘his rightful share of meat,’ i.e. what Hermes per-
ceived to be his rightful share. ²!(/Ρ!« does not occur in the Iliad,
but it appears twice in the Odyssey (16.423 C# ²!( W
$))7)!; 22.412 C/ ²!( ! # $ ! C/!),
where according to Maffi (1982, 45) it implies the established normative
order of the oikos; LSJ gloss ‘sanctioned by divine law.’ While ¹ *« de-
signates something that belongs to the gods, Ρ!« is something that
belongs to (or an action to be performed by) mortals, but is sanctioned
or prescribed by divine law. Thus Hermes, qua god, should not desire an
²!( of meat (this is a prerogative of the mortals); the young god makes
a similar error on the meaning of ²!( at 173 (see n.)
The use of ²!( here has puzzled scholars: van Herwerden (1876)
emended to F!(«, comparing to Il. 18.327 ()(U« F!(), and ren-
dered it ‘portions of meat.’ Wilamowitz (1984, I 15–16 n. 2) remarked
on the silence of commentators on this passage and went on to inter-
pret it as a “gesteigerte (‘increased’) 7,” which is more appropriate
at 172–73 ($φλ ξ
« | $Ω
« ²!(« "7!). For earlier at-
tempts to explain its meaning here, see van der Valk (1942) and (1951),
Pagliaro (1961, esp. 93 and 95–96 n. 6), who draws a distinction from
¹ *«, and Benveniste (1969, II 199–202), for whom the term means
“that which, in human relations, is prescribed or permitted by divine
law.” Maffi (1982, 36–44) offers a very useful overview of the expla-
nations proposed since Wilamowitz; cf. Richardson on h.Dem. 211
(²!(« Q ‘for the sake of the rite’]6); further Chadwick (1996,
221–26), Georgoudi (1996, 69), who proposes that it relates to the equi-
table distribution of meat, and Jay-Robert (1999, 8–16) who on p. 15 n.
64 considers the phrase to mean both “viandes réparties conform-
ément au droit” and “droit conféré par ces viandes.” LSJ s.v. ²! I
quote an inscription from Cyrene (= Wilamowitz [1927, 158–59] = LSS
115A 21–25) where we read ¹ ²! ‘all may share law-
fully in the rites’ (but note that Sokolowski prints ξ ¹ Ρ!
).
6 Q M; "( Voss; 3)/ Schaefer.

342 Commentary
For the form of % which is unique in early epic, see Zum-

bach 3 and Janko (1982, 137); it recurs in Nic. Al. 258 and AP 9.519.2
(= HE 19, Alcaeus Messenius). At 64 and 287 the poet uses the metri-
cally equivalent which belongs to an Iliadic formula (
&) that he uses complete, while ²!(« does not have
any formulaic associations, as Janko points out; however, is also
used independently of the formula just cited (though in a different
sedes, cf. Il. 12.300, Od. 4.88 λ , 14.28 Rφ # ¹ 1!«
, 14.456 ! λ (4x), 15.507 # $κ λ
F π*, 17.258 ) ξ !). Janko
suggests that was probably built after the nominative singular
( «) and the dative plural ( !). For some reason the poet did
not isolate from &, and his use of may
suggest that while he was striving to include formulaic material
wherever possible (e.g. at 64 and 287), he improvised when such ma-
terial did not exist (as here).
: For the desire for food and drink, cf. the formulaic verse
C λ *!« λ (1« < 3 Q. » is used in early
poetry not only of erotic love; cf. Il. 20.223*, Od. 11.238, [Hes.] fr.
145.13*, Archil. 48.6, further Theoc. 7.73*; and Il. 9.64 () 3 -
), 16.208 (φ)*« … Q(« μ # !), Theoc. 4.27
( »« !! «). For the semantics of 3 «/3 « and » in
early Epic, see Kloss (1994, 24–40, 78–86).
' « E«: see 46n.
131–133 ‘For the smell, a sweet one, tormented him, immortal though
he was; but even so his manly spirit did not yield, even though he
strongly desired to swallow (the meat) down his divine throat.’
131 >κ ! 0: S7 is a media vox that can have both posi-
tive (e.g. Od. 5.59–60 the pleasant smell at Calypso’s island, 9.210 the
smell of Maron’s wine) or negative connotations (e.g. Il. 14.415 the smell
of sulphur, Od. 4.406, 442, 446 the smell of Proteus’ seals); see Ramelli
(1998, 365–69).
At Od. 4.441 is used of the seals’ smell that offends Mene-
laus’ men ( « | φ 4) φ S)@« S7),
while at Od. 12.332 it is hunger that torments Odysseus’ crew (3 ξ
! )*«). Both and ²!( refer to elements belonging to
Lines 130–132 343
the human sphere and once more underscore Hermes’ incomplete

awareness of his divine identity or rather his flirtation with human at-
tractions; cf. Jaillard (2007, 113–14).
λ $" & : gods are particularly attracted to the
!( of the sacrificial victims (cf. Il. 1.66–67, 4.48–49 = 24.69–70), but
they are not supposed to consume meat; Hermes’ reaction here verges
on the human (cf. Asclepiades of Cyprus FGrH 752 F 1).
132 π)(): an emphatic word, in the run-over position and following

in hyperbaton. Cf. Od. 12.369 λ * !(« $φ7) πL«
$7, when the savor from the Sun’s cows, killed and roasted by his
companions, reaches Odysseus’ nostrils; our S7 … π() may be an
oblique reference to the Odyssean episode. Elsewhere, an π S7
rises from the mixing-bowl (Od. 9.210), the narcissus flower (h.Dem.
13), and the wine produced by Dionysus on the pirates’ boat (h.Hom.
7.35–36 c # S7 | $" !().
$# :# —« ¹ &" "μ« $! %: M transmits $))# C#
γ« μ« $7 , which as AHS suggest may have been a
scribe’s conjecture under the influence of the Odyssean parallels (see
below) to make up for the lost ¹. Although from a palaeographical
point of view it is possible to lose - through haplography, the dative
always accompanies the formula in the Odyssey, and, as more unusual,
¹ is more likely to have been changed.
This line is a combination of a formulaic expression ($))# C# —«),
which occurs always at line beginning (8x in the Iliad, 9x in the Odys-
sey), and a variation of μ« $7 (Od. 2.103, 10.406,
10.466, 10.475, 10.550, 12.28, 12.324, 19.148; cf. h.Dem. 324
« # C
*«), which always indicates a person’s agreement (or
disagreement in h.Dem.) with a speech that has just conluded (the for-
mula is preceded by γ« 3φ vel sim.).
In Homeric Greek, desire is often localized () ) ; thus we
would expect the poet to say something to the effect that ‘Hermes did
not obey his *« (i.e. desire).’ But here the relation is inverted: it is his
own *« that does not obey Hermes. Elsewhere, *« orders or
urges one to a particular action, and sometimes a person is said to con-
verse with his *« regarding the proper course of action to follow,
whereby the *« is thought of as answering back: this occurs e.g. at
Il. 11.403–407 where Odysseus is conversing with his *«, con-
344 Commentary
templating whether he should flee from battle or stay and fight even
though he is left alone; cf. also Il. 17.90–106. It is important that the
decision is made by the individual and not his *«; cf. Cheyns (1983,
66–67). The *« can furthermore be convinced (cf. the examples
listed in Caswell [1990, 68] s.v. and the references to
μ« $7 cited above), but it is always convinced by something
that a different person (or a god) says; h.Herm. is in this respect unique
because the *« reacts to a desire of the self. Hermes’ *« is his di-
vine nature that prevents him from tasting the meat. On *«, see
further Sullivan (1995, esp. 54–58), Cheyns (1983).
"μ« $! % (just as $( () implies in Homer excessive mas-
culinity, characterized by emphasis on the individual interest and dis-
regard for the interests or feelings of the group, and often leads to de-
struction; see Graziosi and Haubold (2003). In the case of Hermes, this
phrase can be read humorously (the over-manly spirit of a newborn
child!), but at another level we may read the individualism that Gra-
ziosi and Haubold detect in the Homeric attestations of the phrases
containing $7 and $( (: at this stage in the poem Hermes
is seeking honours and a place in the Olympian pantheon at the ex-
pense of another party (Apollo). Later Hermes abandons his quest
for personal gratification and enters into an agreement and concili-
ation with Apollo (with whom he will have a ²*φ *; cf.
391n.). Finally, μ« $7 is sometimes used in similes where a
warrior’s spirit is compared to that of a lion (Il. 12.299–308, 24.39–45;
cf. 12.41–50), and this may resonate with & used of
Hermes at 64.
133 # ¹ : for , cf. 92n. This, along with the pre-
vious line, indicates Hermes’ internal struggle; cf. 64n.
» is Barnes’ emendation for the transmitted
(M),
(# ([, ) vel sim. Clarke’s 9
# (
[] < ) was
rejected by many editors on the grounds that the elision of infinitives in
- is not admissible (see Monro §376 and Chantraine, GH I 86 §36).
Thus Gemoll and AS considered the verse corrupt beyond remedy, but
despite the strictures of grammar AHS offered
# that was ac-
cepted by Radermacher who suggested that the form may produce a
colloquial effect. However, Allen (1897a) rightly thought that
(‘to bring to an end’) was “out of the question.”
Lines 132–133 345
Barnes’ », accepted by Càssola, is the best solution; for

its sense (‘drive right through’), cf. LSJ, s.v. I 1; LfgrE, s.v.
B suggests “hindurch machen” (‘pass something across or
through’) as the original meaning (note that our » is to be found
s.v. () “vollenden,” ‘complete, accomplish’). The corruption
must be old as it is represented in all MSS in one way or another and
may have arisen from a misunderstanding of » for , whence
the variant ( in p. Ludwich 102 conjectured , comparing with
Hes. Th. 459 and 497, where however we meet (of Cronus
gulping his children down, i.e. swallowing them, unlike Hermes who
would presumably eat his portion of meat).
The present infinitive with its durative aspect emphasizes again
Hermes’ struggle with his desire to devour his portion of meat (cf.
)# ¹ ). The fact that Hermes cannot make himself consume
his portion of meat manifests his divine identity beyond any doubt.
Hermes’ ‘ritual’ takes place in a post-Promethean era, as Clay Politics
124, has pointed out; cf. also Jaillard (2007, 108–10), who observes that
Hermes is not founding the sacrificial ritual but affirming the rules al-
ready layed down by Prometheus; cf. Hes. Th. 535–37.
At [Apollod.] 3.10 (= III 112) Hermes actually partakes of his por-
tion of meat: ξ ξ ()! '57!« ξ
!. For the relation of the ps.-Apollodoran account to our
Hymn, see above, p. 93–97.
¹« 3 «: ¹ *« is used in the Hymn of things belonging
to or associated with Hermes; cf. 21 and 63 (¹ ) λ ) )), and 251
(s ¹ λ *) where Maia’s cave is compared to a
temple (see n. ad loc.). For the semantics of ¹ *« (‘sacred, belonging to
the gods’, as opposed to Ρ!« that designates what is permissible for
humans, sanctioned by divine law), see Pagliaro (1961, esp. 93, 95–96 n.
6). ¹ *« originally meant ‘vigorous’; cf. Vedic isirá- ‘strong, impetuous’
and see West (2007, 89).
is used only here in the context of eating; in Homer it is most
often employed to specify where a warrior is wounded (Il. 3.371,
12.204, 13.202, 14.412, 18.177; cf. 19.285 tearing one’s chest, throat,
and face in mourning; Od. 22.472 9
! " */ _!) or of Aphro-
dite’s beautiful neck (Il. 3.396); in all of these the emphasis lies on the
outside of the 7, not the gullet as here.
346 Commentary
134 &« Κ DB" : cf. 103n.
135–137 ‘But those things he brought into the high-roofed stable and
placed them on the ground ( ( ), i.e. the fat and the many pieces
of meat; but then he forthwith lifted them, the token of his recent theft,
up high and carried them off. And having taken up many dry sticks (and
placed them in the pit) he destroyed them (sc. the meat etc.), heads, feet
and all, through the heat of fire.’
135 μ λ is yet another indication that Hermes treats
the parts of the sacrificial victims in an undifferentiated way; cf.
116–41n. and Jaillard (2007, 146).
135–136 # ρB# $ | « φ%«: for , cf.

488 (7 ))&), where it is used in the context of song and
music (see n. ad loc.).
This phrase is usually taken to mean that Hermes lifts up the por-
tions of meat and deposits them in the cave in order to make them a
manifestation or proof of his recent theft; these portions of meat were
at a later stage presumably recognized in some rock formation inside
the cave. But again, what kind of rock formation resembles pieces of
meat? I believe Hermes is doing something much simpler: having reali-
zed his divine status he decides to remove every trace of his actions that
would betray his initial insecurity; cf. Clay Politics 123. Thus he first
carries the meat into the cave, but then changes his mind: depositing the
meat in the cave is not an efficient way to conceal what he had done. He
therefore picks these portions up again and takes them outside, where
he burns them along with the cows’ heads and feet. Thus $ does
not mean here “appendere,” as Càssola renders it, but ‘lift up and carry
off’; for the coexistence of these two meanings, cf. Il. 23.614 M( *(«
# $ 1 / ! ) (he lifted and took away the two ta-
lents that were his prize) and Burkert (1984, 838 n. 20).
136. The line is missing from M, but this should not cast any doubt on its
authenticity as it is necessary in order to construe 137. φ
« ‘theft’ was
conjectured by Hermann on the basis of 385 ( # Ω 1) !
λ () φ 7) instead of φ
« in ~.
Cusset (1997) proposed !
(« (« (= ‘a manifestation of his
Lines 134–137 347
recent feast’ or ‘a manifestation of a novel feast’), comparing Alcm. 98

(« ξ λ !!; quoted by Str. 10.4.18 = p. 482 C.) where
« was corrupted: one MS (B) replaced it by φ« and others
(C D) by φ «; q has φ«. This led Cusset to suggest that the fol-
lowing palaeographical error occurred in h.Herm. 136: !
(« («
was corrupted into !
(« φ(«, and then φ(« was replaced by
the more familiar φ
« (which was later emended by Hermann into
φ
«). However, this is not an economical solution, as it assumes two
corruptions in the same part of the line, and is therefore unlikely.
« φ%« is in apposition to (μ λ )) and
not proleptic as it is sometimes taken.
&λ … $«: sc. "* , i.e. Hermes lifted the dry logs and placed
them in the pit where there had been some wood already (112); for the
construction cf. Il. 7.426, 9.214, and LfgrE, s.v. $ , col. 170.22–33.
Notice that in the sense used here occurs in Il. 9.214 after two
verses (212–13) that bear some similarities with 140 (see n.): C λ
( λ φ)μ< (, | $ κ ! !« S")L«
φ1 !!. There is therefore no need to emend to $ «
with Ilgen (adopted by West).
Notice the rhyming effect in $ and $ «.
8' ! (): cf. 112 »).
137 * : # : : = Ρ)« *«, Ρ) ( (LSJ, s.v.

C) (« II), i.e. (lit.) ‘their feet and heads being entire’. For
: « cf. Od. 19.246 and Nonn. D. 17.385 (= ‘curly-haired’). As
Baumeister already observed, these words should not be taken as sub-
stantives; and Risch (1974, §68b) treats C) (« as a bahuvrihi (i.e.
possessive) compound. These adjectives agree with of 134.
Gemoll ad loc. may have been right to suggest that these adjectives
are technical terms; they are reminiscent of the so-called ²)* «
! or & in which the entire victim was destroyed by the fire;
see Ekroth (2002, 217–42). Ekroth’s survey shows that in some cults the
recipient of the sacrifice (Zeus, Heracles) would be offered a holocaust
(usually an animal of lesser value, such as a piglet) as well as a regular
! which was followed by dining. Here, however, Hermes has in-
verted the sequence: he first lays out the portions for his guests and sub-
sequently destroys the victims, a sequence that is very rare; cf. Ekroth
(2002, 218). However, we should also not forget that rather than per-
348 Commentary
forming a ritual action here, Hermes intends to hide the incriminating

evidence; see Furley (1981, 44).
For the treatment of the victim’s head during a sacrifice (often given
to the priest officiating at the sacrifice), see Stengel (1910, 85–88),
Meuli (1946, 261–62).
Notice the homoeoarcton between C)*() and C) (.
μ« # $9 : normally it is the fire that ‘subdues’ or
‘destroys’ something; cf. Il. 21.401 p (sc. ) Cξ :μ« (!
*« and Od. 11.220–21 (sc. ! « λ S!) μ«
μ « | ) ». Hes. Th. 864–65 !( « … | …
&*« λ ()) is closer to our verse.
138 ‘But after the god had accomplished everything according to (his)
needs …’
3 5 « means here ‘according to [Hermes’] needs.’ Hermes ini-
tially stages a trapezoma for the Twelve, therefore he roasts the meat.
But when he realizes that as a god he cannot partake of the meat but
only enjoy its savour, he burns everything since this meets better
Hermes’ (and the other gods’) needs. In addition, this is the best way for
Hermes to conceal the traces of his ‘sacrifice’.
AHS interpreted this expression here as ironic, considering the
affair at the Alpheios to be a sacrifice in which Hermes did not follow
the regular procedure. At Od. 11.479* / « is an equivalent to
/ (!*« (‘consult an oracle or a seer’).
LSJ, s.v. / « III 2, compare A.R. 3.189 and Arat. 343, but these
are not exactly parallel: in both passages / « means ‘in
the proper manner, in due fashion’ (cf. , # ρ!).
But Hermes has not been following the sacrificial rules ‘in due fashion.’
% : Hermes is now explicitly called divine (cf. also 131), and
significantly this term follows Hermes’ ‘ritual’ and his realizing his di-
vine nature; cf. below, 154 (*«) and 551 ( 1 ).
139 : see 83n.

: cf. 295 (and n. ad loc.) where ( is used of
Hermes’ ‘delivering’ his ‘omen.’
&« #Aφμ <" : "(« (or "7«) typically
qualifies rivers, e.g. Il. 20.73 (Scamander), 21.143 (Axios), Od. 10.511,
Hes. Th. 133, Op. 171 (Ocean), h.Hom. 1.3 (Alpheios).
Lines 137–141 349
140 The line is distantly reminiscent of Il. 9.212–13 (quoted at 136n.).

The spreading of the ashes occurs in the Iliad passage before roasting the
meat rather than after it as in the Hymn. In addition, this line reveals yet
another violation of the ritual practice at Olympia: the altars there con-
sisted of undisturbed ashes and bones; cf. Paus. 5.13.8, 5.14.8–10, Fur-
ley (1981, 45).
$ "κ # & : for & , cf. Il. 21.347 $<( 9 (.
# $" : to conceal his actions, Hermes
scatters the ash that was produced by his complete destruction of the
two cows.
*« is nowhere qualified as ) in archaic Epic except here and
at 345 (this combination is found in Anacr. 347.5–6); the poet might have
been inspired by phrases such as ) and *« )*!!.
Note too that *« and ) co-exist (without referring to each
other) in some Homeric verses: Il. 15.423 9(! !* μ« -
)(«, 18.23–26, Od. 22.329–30, 383, 24.316.
$"' ‘to reduce to dust, completely destroy’ has normally fire
as its subject; cf. Il. 9.593 *) $1, A.R. 3.294–95 μ
# (sc. ) $!φ < S) | ) $ * !L φ
# $1; metaphorically in A. Eu. 937 (lyr.).
Perhaps our poet understood $1 as deriving from Ν«
‘sand’; cf. Hdn. III/2 p. 177 (= EM 817.40), Eust. Il. II 814 (= p. 777)
)1 ³« « Ν λ ³« ¹ ) φ! « * !
(‘dust of the land’ as opposed to sand found at the sea-shore), Hsch.
3399.
141 '5 «: ‘in the depth of night,’ not ‘all night long’: the context
suggests that Hermes’ action here is instantaneous, one of the many
tasks he performend during the first night of his life. Gemoll glosses
“den Rest der Nacht” comparing Il. 1.472 (o¹ ξ ( )9
μ ¹)! ), which is impossible in view of ρ5# σ« of 142.

M’s (adverbial) 1/ is contrary to epic usage, where the
word appears in its adjectival form in the predicative position; cf. Il. 2.2,
7.476, 478, 8.508, 10.2, Od. 1.443, 7.288, 12.429, [Hes.] Sc. 46 etc.
μ ξ φ%« … «: cf. Ar. Nu. 614 κ 9 (, , ) »#,
κ φ« )((« )* (= ‘beautiful,’ hence ‘clear’).
= M adopted by AHS, Radermacher, Richardson;
has ) which AS preferred (so Abel, Franke, Baumeister,
350 Commentary
Gemoll, Càssola, West). ) is found at Il. 17.649–50 (C

# ξ ! ! λ $! S/)( | )« # )5); cf.
A.R. 2.164–65 (_« # )« ! « )5 )@« |
$@), and it implies the arrival or rise of the sun; the moon
however is not appearing just now, but had risen some time ago (cf. 99).
Cf. E. El. 464–65 ξ !) ) ! φ | 1 )«
4).
142–53 Hermes returns to his cave

Having completed his actions at the Alpheios and removed all traces
of them, Hermes returns to Cyllene and enters stealthily into his
cave.
142 cf. 70 P (« $φ R ! *.

K « … ) : ) is a unique combination,
but we may compare Od. 1.2 T (« ¹ μ ) or K *
¹ μ ) (Od. 9.165). For as ‘mountain-peaks,’ cf. e.g.
Il. 1.44, 2.167, 2.735, 2.869, Od. 6.123, 9.113, h.Apol. 33, 39, and Clarke
(1997) who discusses the anthropomorphic representation of moun-
tains in Greek myth. Our poet uses elsewhere ( as ‘head of
cattle’; cf. 94, 302, 394, 402 (" Fφ ().
Now that they have been proven to be the dwelling of a god, the
peaks of Cyllene are qualified as , ‘divine’; cf. 138 , 148
Ν … (*, and 246–52. For Hermes’ cult at Cyllene, see
2n.
ρB# σ« occurs twice in Hesiod in speech introductions (Th. 169,
Cronus to Gaia; Th. 654 Cottus to Zeus). Radermacher ad loc. is surely
right to consider this phrase important: it reflects the tendency in fairy-
tales for things to occur fast. Hermes’ constantly acts swiftly; cf. 43–46,
86 *«, 148 1!«, 150, and 320 !!«.
143 2" « is in the emphatic, runover position. We do not meet it

in Homer or Hesiod (though Hes. Op. 577 has R ), and it recurs
in Thgn 1.863, Hdt. 2.173.1, Ar. Av. 489, Lys. 60, Ec. 283, 377, Pl.
Prt. 313b, Lg. 961b, Arist. HA 627a24, Diph. 66.2, Theoc. 7.123
etc.
Lines 141–145a, 145b–149 351
For R «, see 98n. There is no inconsistency with the fact that the
moon was shining (141), as previous critics have thought; cf. 97–98n.
5« ² : ‘during his long journey,’ a genitive of ‘time within
which’; cf. 86.
144 A common polar expression, to which an unexpected member

(dogs) is added at 145; cf. h.Dem. 44–46 (Κ « … | … Κ Κ
( $ @ | Κ# «), where it is said that no one met
Demeter as an 7« Ν)«. In both cases the expansion makes
good sense: a bird may function as an Ν)«, and Demeter is looking
for news about Persephone at that point in the hymn; Hermes is
the ‘dog-throttler’, hence the reminder about the dogs’ absence.
For the anaphora of negations, cf. 263–66, 363–64.
145 :ξ ' « : is a unique reduplicated aorist

form (cf. Il. 4.127 ))).
For animals ‘screaming’ or ‘howling’ (usually birds), epic uses the
perfect ))( /)) . Cf. Il. 22.141 (a hawk), Od. 12.85 (Scylla),
Hes. Op. 207 (a nightingale), Arat. 914, 972 (a heron); cf. Alcm.
1.86–87 ( !« … )) | )1<), adesp. 460.8 SLG (of a night-
ingale).
Cξ 1« )) hints at Hermes’ powers over watch-dogs;
cf. his appellation /(« (Hippon. 3a.1).
145b–149 ‘And swift Hermes, the son of Zeus, having turned himself to
the side, slipped through the opening of the hall’s door, similar to an au-
tumn breeze, just like mist. Straightaway he arrived at the rich inner-
chamber of the cave, walking quietly on his feet; for he did not make
any noise as one (makes when walking) on the ground.’
Hermann p. lix-lxi thought that these lines present inconsistencies
which he attributed to interpolation: (i) The cave Hermes enters ap-
pears to be a house. (ii) Although Hermes transforms himself into mist,
we are not told that he assumes his original form afterwards. (iii) If
Hermes enters the cave as mist, then there is no need for the poet to
mention that Hermes did not make any noise. Baumeister accepted
these criticisms and went so far as to delete 148–49. But such criticism is
unjustified and does not take into account the fairy-tale nature of the
story adequately. Thus, (i) we have already observed that the descri-
352 Commentary
ption of Hermes’ cave changes according to the rhetorical needs of the

moment (cf. 23n.). Since Hermes realized his divine identity when he
was unable to partake of his portion of meat at the Alpheios, the poet
refers to his dwelling as a and (*«. (ii) and (iii) Nothing
in the poem requires us to believe that Hermes actually transforms him-
self into mist (cf. AHS ad loc.): ) « and 1 suggest similarity
rather than identification. The point of the simile rests on Hermes’
stealth: he enters the cave unseen and unnoticed (by everyone except
Maia), just as a breeze or mist (hence he makes no noise as he walks on
the ground).
How does Hermes enter the cave? It is assumed that Hermes slips
into the cave through the key-hole. Thus, LSJ s.v. /* offer ‘turning
himself to dart through the key-hole’; Beck in LfgrE, s.v. /(*) sug-
gests that “Hermes (who naturally stood directly in front of the door)
turned toward the side (of the door), where he passed through,” and
considers the possibility that )7 at 146 may mean a ‘chink’ be-
tween the door and the jamb.
What renders the events in these verses obscure is that the poet con-
flates various images: (i) the fairy-tale motif of entering through the
keyhole (cf. Bolte-Polívka [1963, II 416] ‘the devil enters through the
keyhole’; Stith Thompson, Motif-Index F535.1.1.11.1 ‘Thumbling
steals by entering keyhole’, G249.7 ‘Witches go through keyholes’); see
also Bloomfield (1923, 118–20) for thieves’ use of magic in the Hindu
tradition; (ii) Hermes’ cave that is conceived of as an imaginary space
whose description is adapted to the needs of the moment: now it is
a with a door and a )7 ; and (iii) the image of a god or
a spirit entering a room in the form of an insubstantial apparition
(cf. 146n.), which fits well with Hermes’ partronage of dreams (cf.
π7 # S ).
Just as Hermes’ address to the tortoise and the Old Man earlier,
the description of his return into the cave is deliberately confusing:
the audience is meant to wonder how Hermes entered into the cave:
through the key-hole? By turning himself sideways and walking softly
through the chink between the door-jamb and the door? But what sort
of door has such a big opening? Or did Hermes enter by transforming
himself into an mist and then assuming his proper form again? But the
poet does not really indicate this clearly. Likewise, Apollo later wonders
at Hermes’ stealing his cattle and killing two of the animals.
Lines 145b–149, 145b–146 353
145b μ« # & ' « E«: cf. 28 (:μ« # 1« ¹*«). Al-

though the phrase does not occur anywhere else, its components are
traditional (see formulaic apparatus). For the general construction
(genitive of father’s name + epithet + name in the nominative), cf. Il.
2.527 #O)
« /L« AF«.
146 5%"« ‘turning sideways’ occurs once more in [Hes.] Sc. 389,
of a wild boar who turns his neck aside to whet his teeth on the rocks;
Russo (1965) renders “oblique inflexus.” At Od. 9.372 Polyphemus lies
asleep on his back, his neck turned sideways ($/@!« /L
C/); cf. Nonn. D. 3.371, 4.375 where it is used of the neck or head.
Càssola translates “rannicchiandosi” (= ‘huddling up, gathering him-
self so as to occupy the least possible space’) which is what Hermes ac-
tually does at 240.
For the idea, cf. the distantly parallel Od. 4.802 « ) # !
)-
)(=« ¹ and 838–39 γ« μ ! )(=
)!( | « « $; but in these instances it is an F) that
enters and leaves Penelope’s bed-chamber, not an actual person.
! : for the term, see Rougier-Blanc (2005, 189–256). But
notice that at 148 the poet reminds us that this is still a cave (Ν ) al-
though it possesses a (*«!
3 " 0 : ‘he slipped through a chink/opening of the
door.’ LfgrE, s.v. 1, 1 I1b include this verse among the
examples of 1 used when a god arrives at (often dives into) his/her
element, dwelling, or favorite location; cf. Il. 15.219 (Poseidon:
ξ * @), 18.140 (Thetis to the Nereids: )!!(« C
*)), Od. 7.81 (Athena: # #E /
« μ *),
h.Aphr. 58 (Aphrodite: @ (μ 3). In all these examples
1 is construed with an accusative that indicates the place into
which the deity dives, arrives etc.; this is clearly not the case here, as the
verb is construed with a prepositional phrase ( )7 ; cf. LSJ s.v.
B I 1) and it does not simply indicate the god’s arrival at his dwel-
ling, but rather his clandestine entry into his dwelling through an open-
ing.
" = ‘chink or opening of the door’; less likely = )9 (
(S7) i.e. key-hole. The word occurs first here (but note )(=2 «, a hook-
like ‘key,’ at Od. 21.47, 50); in classical Greek )7 (Attic )-
) is the door-bar (cf. A. Th. 396, S. Ant. 1186, OT 1262, 1287, 1294,
354 Commentary
E. Hipp. 808, HF 332, 1029, IT 99, 1304, Hel. 1180, Ar. Lys. 264, X. An.
7.1.17 etc.). At Hp. Morb. 2.28 (VII 46) )7 is the opening of the
windpipe.
For locking mechanisms in antiquity, see Od. 21.46–48, Diels (1965,
34–49), Hug (1921), LfgrE s.v. )(«, and NP 11, p. 186–88 with fig. 1.
In the Homeric door mechanism the door-bar ( )9
) was drawn
from the outside by means of a strap (¹«), which was normally fas-
tened to a hook ( @(), and the door would thus be locked. To un-
lock the door, one had to insert a crank-like key ( )(=2 «) through an
opening of the door that would reach the door-bar’s indentations and
push the bar back.
147 Cf. Od. 6.20 π # (= Athena) $ ³« κ !!

1 («. A.R. 4.877 Cκ , 9
)( «, 1# R « may be a
reminiscence of the Hymn. Zanetto (1996, 268) links this immaterial
appearance of dreams and the dead (cf. Od. 11.206–208) to Hermes’
role as the leader of dreams and the psychopomp.
Κ9 >% 9 & ! «: >% « appears in Homer in the
same sedes as here only in similes representing a negative situation that
implies violence: at Il. 5.5 $! # S ) ) «, which is the
closest to our verse, the fire ($ ) which emanates from
Diomedes’ armour through the intervention of Athena is compared to
the autumn star (Diomedes is about to have his aristeia during which
he kills many Trojans and even wounds two gods); at Il. 16.384–93 the
panting of the Trojan horses is compared to the terrible storm that
Zeus sends to the unjust men on an autumn day (-# S ) ); at
Il. 21.346–49 Hephaestus’ fire parches the field, just as the north wind
in autumn dries a newly-watered field (³« # Ρ# S μ« B («);
finally at Od. 5.328–32 the winds carry Odysseus’ raft in every direc-
tion just as the north wind of autumn carries away the thistles (again
³« # Ρ# S μ« B («). The sinister associations of S *« in
the Homeric similes may be carried over in our simile: Hermes has
committed an act that violated the Olympian balance of honours (he
has stolen something that belonged to another god), and a quarrel is
about to arise between him and Apollo that will be transferred to
Olympus.
For the quantity of S *«, see Schipp (1972, 198).
'# >5 recurs only at Il. 1.359*, where Thetis who appears
Lines 146–149 355
from the sea to console Achilles is compared to mist; are we perhaps to

think of another mother, Maia, who will soon appear to chastise her
son?
148 +"'« is yet another reminder of Hermes’ speedy and purposeful

motion; cf. 43–46n., 88n., 109–14n.
Ν is construed $μ with 1!« (cf. Il. 6.2, 15.693)
and (*.
‘rich temple,’ should not surprise us. By now it has be-
come clear that a god dwells in the cave; cf. above 142n. and /1« at
246 and 252. « is properly the innermost part of a temple that
housed the cult-statue (hence ‘rich’ because of the wealth de-
posited there), but was also used metonymically for a ‘temple’; cf. Od.
12.346 (Odysseus’ men promise to build a rich temple to Helios for
helping themselves to his cattle), h.Dem. 297, h.Apol. 52, 253 = 293,
478, 482, 501, 523, Rougier-Blanc (2005, 38–40). The poet will elabo-
rate on the temple imagery at 227–54; hence (* functions also
proleptically, preparing the audience for this change in perspective.
149 N λ <<- : this seems to be a combination of Il. 13.18

(= Od. 17.27) !λ ""« or Il. 13.158 φ !λ -
""« and Od. 17.254 _ *«. Cf. Od. 15.555 τ "".
: !3 ' —« &# Κ: i.e. —« « # Κ.
1« … is the thud of steps at Od. 16.6 and 19.444; cf.
Il. 10.535 b … % * … 1«, h.Apol. 265 % *
1 b (also 270–71). Cf. further E. Or. 137–38, IA 436, Ar. Ec.
483, 545, Lys. 1306, Tim. 791.199–201 (!1 # | 1
| K5 *« / «, ‘they stamped on the ground with the
loftily-resounding dance of their feet in accordance with the rhythm’)
etc. However, in early epic / 1« are mainly used of Zeus’s
thunder (Il. 7.479, 8.75, 8.170, 15.377, 15.379, 17.595, Od. 21.413,
[Hes.] Sc. 383 and " 1 « at Hes. Th. 388, Op. 79, [Hes.] Sc. 318,
Dem. 3, 334, 441, 460; 1 :*« in Archil. 94.2, although
« is most often used of Poseidon; cf. also Pi. O. 2.80–81 -
) ")« | S ! 1 :*« ‘the fire-wrought missile of noise-
stirring Zeus’) or of the battle-din, and especially the noise produced by
horses’ hooves in battle (Il. 10.532, 10.535, 12.338, 17.175, 20.66;
further Tyrt. 19.14).
356 Commentary
Tichy (1983, 39–40) analyzes as a denominative from

1- (‘noise caused from hooves or steps,’ ‘sound produced from
musical instruments’) that acquires the sense “Donnerhall” (= ‘thun-
derclap’) in post-Homeric times.
The poet may have had Il. 19.92–93 (C # Κ | )
[sc. Ate], $))# Ν D # $ ") in mind.
150 & %«: we are yet again reminded of Hermes’ speed; cf.
43–46n., 88, 109–14n. (end), and 148n.
: see 21n.
' « E«: see 46n. This traditional formula adds further to
the comic effect: glorious Hermes rushes to his cradle and wraps him-
self in his swaddling clothes!
151 ! $φ# \ « + «: asyndeton is frequent in the

Hymn; see above, p. 48.
! occurs first in the h.Herm.; cf. 237, 268, 306, 388,
! at 301. But Hes. Th. 485 has ! !!, which pre-
supposes the existence of the word ! . (It is subsequently
found at Pi. P. 4.114, N. 1.38, fr. 193.3, A. Ag. 1606, Cho. 529, S. OT
1035, fr. 314.275, E. Ion 32, 918, HF 1267, Tr. 759 etc.). On ! ,
see van Hoorn (1909, 6–16). It should be noted that after Hermes and
Apollo’s reconciliation, no mention of the ! is made (similarly
there is no further mention of Hermes’ cave); see p. 37.
At Ar. Ach. 431 ! signifies the rags used in which Telephus
was dressed in a Euripidean production.
Elsewhere, gods’ shoulders are wrapped in mist; cf. Il. 5.185–86
$)) « Ν/ | Q!( # $ φ)9 ( )« c«; further Il.
16.790, 17.551, Hes. Th. 9, 757. At h.Apol. 127–29 Apollo permanently
rids himself of his swaddling clothes as soon as he tastes ambrosia and
nectar; Hermes, however, puts them on and off as the need arises.
151–152 ' | = 163–64 where Hermes protests to his

mother for chastising him as if he were an infant. 1 would normally
imply that Hermes is not an infant child; this contradicts his appear-
ance and age in the Hymn, but conforms to his intellectual capabilities.
At any rate, through this comparison the poet seems to take his hero’s
side before the ensuing confrontation with Maia.
Lines 149–152 357
152 « (< (1« (in-fans), with influence of -«) is often

used in this sedes metaphorically as ‘foolish’, ‘senseless’; cf. LfgrE s.v.
1c and 2a-c. Here it should be understood in the sense of ‘a very
young child’, perhaps an ‘infant,’ which is especially pointed since
Hermes displays his skills in speaking throughout the poem. 1
7 refers both to what precedes (! $φ# c«
)«) and what follows ( )9 (! # 1! )φ«
$1 ).
Frisk, s.v. 7«, considers (1« an ‘expressive expansion’ of
7«, but Chantraine DELG, s.v., denies any connection with ζ«:
Myc. na-pu-ti-jo (= (1«) may point to 1. Beekes, s.v. relates it
to -« and derives it from a root *h2ep- ‘join’; Lat. aptus, Gr. Ϊ
‘attach, grasp.’ Similarly, Edmunds (1990) proposes that the original
meaning of 7« was ‘disconnected,’ mentally or socially.
λ ! = Forssmann’s (1964) emendation, followed by Càs-
sola and West (2003a); see also Katz (2007, 108–12). Forssmann’s ar-
guments rest on the following: (i) the elision of is not attested in
the Homeric Hymns and (ii) 1« occurs only in late authors. His
emendation should be accepted, even though elision of is at-
tested in archaic epic: cf. Hes. Th. 678 /, an aeolism according
to West (1966a, 83; the k manuscript has / at 733); cf. sub-
sequently A. Ag. 1147 ") (see Fraenkel ad loc.), Eu. 634 -
! 7!, and the Attic form of the participle @ (for @).
Elision of as an independent word is found at Pi. O. 6.38 and P.
4.265, and later at [Theoc.] 25.242 ( # 19 (!); cf. Korzeniewski
(1968, 26).
According to Reece (2009, 237–47) 1« arose from junctural
metanalysis of phrases such as $φλ - > $φ# -, $λ - > $#
- etc. (Reece would read λ 19 (! at Theoc. loc. cit.); subse-
quently, the form 1( existed side by side with the - forms (cf. al-
ready Il. 13.212 # 1( "")(«) and survived in later authors
(e.g. Hp. Nat.Hom. 11.7 [VI 58], Mul. 110 [VIII 236], Arist. HA 512b18,
22, 25, Nic. Th. 278, Lucian. VH 1.23 etc.). The existence of a form
1« in Homeric Greek is presupposed by the adverb 1<.
)φ « $"'% : ‘playing with his blanket.’ )φ« is a piece
of cloth, here a bed-cover or blanket. It may also mean ‘rag’ as at
Od. 13.399 and 20.206 (cf. Hsch. ) 171 )φ), Pan’s lynx-skin at
h.Hom. 19.23, or a sail as e.g. at h.Apol. 406, Alc. 208.7, Antim. 68.1,
358 Commentary
E. Hel. 1074, Tr. 690, adesp. 999.1 PMG, Call. Del. 319, Epigr. 5.4 Pf.
(= 1112 HE), and freqently in A.R.; cf. Hsch. ) 174 )φ« and Suda
) 207 )φ(: () « π /)«, ) 208 )φ«: Ν , ¹!,
¹.
The object with which one plays may appear in the dative (e.g.
A.R. 4.950 !φ 9 (, Phil.Jun Im. 8, II p. 402 Kayser, $! )«),
but the accusative is also sometimes used with this verb, chiefly in the
context of song: h.Hom. 19.15 (! = ‘producing a song’), A.R.
3.949–50 ()7); Pi. N. 3.44 (Achilles: « Ω Ν )
3 ).
153. ‘holding (lit. restraining) the lovely lyre on his left hand-side’,
i.e. the lyre was lying between Hermes’ left arm and the side of his
cradle (cf. LfgrE s.v. () , F , I 2 a).
5 & : cf. 52 μ Ν , which may have influenced
’s 7. *« is sometimes used for the music produced from
the lyre, e.g. h.Apol. 515, h.Herm. 423, 455 μ &.
&# $3 5μ« &!% : cf. 418, 499. Elsewhere, # $ !
/ *«// is used of directions/orientation (Od. 5.277, A.R.
2.1266). Our verse resembles Il. 12.201=219 μ« K5(« #
$ ! )μ (‘passing, [lit. debarring] the host on the left’),
possibly a ‘parallel of sound’; cf. 108n.
154–83 Hermes’ first confrontation

This is the first of three verbal challenges that Hermes faces in the
course of the Hymn. As Clay Politics 127 rightly observes, these con-
frontations are arranged in an ascending order (Maia, Apollo, and
Zeus), while the scene changes from Maia’s cave to Olympus. Hermes
first needs to ascertain his position in the narrower circle of his private
dwelling, vis-à-vis his mother, before he can claim his rightful position
on Olympus. His reply to Maia is a clear formulation of his Lebenspro-
gramm (cf. Kuiper [1910, 45]), which he has already set in motion at the
beginning of the Hymn.
Radermacher 105 suggested that the exchange between Hermes
and his mother has no bearing whatsoever on the development of the
poem’s plot; it merely serves to characterize the young god. Although
a section serving this purpose in a hymn devoted to Hermes would cer-
tainly not be out of place, these lines accomplish more than this, as
Lines 152–154 359
becomes clear if we consider them in relation to the other two confron-

tation scenes. In those later scenes Hermes’ argument relies on the idea
that as a newly-born he is unlikely to have stolen the cows – an argu-
ment from probability (on which see Görgemanns [1976, 113–28]).
Here Hermes explicitly denies his status as an infant: he protests
against his mother treating him like an infant and reveals his plan to
acquire the divine honours to which he feels himself entitled. The
poet, furthermore, has partly prepared this reaction of Hermes by
comparing him to an infant (cf. 150–51n.). It is evident then that
Hermes adapts his rhetoric to his audience and goals, a strategy ap-
propriate to the god of rhetoric and deception. But we should not miss
the comedy of this scene: Hermes emphatically argues that he is not a
7 , while lying in his crib, dressed in his swaddling-
clothes!
Finally, the presentation of a divine conflict in extremely anthropo-
morphic terms, as an everyday human scene in which a mother cha-
stises her son who is envious of his elder half-brother’s privileges, adds
to the poem’s humour; cf. Richardson (2007, 86–88). It is also tempting
to draw a comparison between Maia who receives Hermes in her home
with words of reproach and Leto who proudly welcomes Apollo on
Olympus at h.Apol. 12–15.
154–61 Maia’s speech

154 # : Ν# 0": cf. AP 5.127.5–6 (= GP 1359–60, quoted
on p. 124).
"3 "«: cf. Od. 5.97 ) »« )* *, which is ut-
tered by Hermes when he visits Calypso to request that she let Odysseus
go. This is the first allusion to Odyssey 5, which the poet will follow up
below at 228ff.
For such collocations as *«, cf. Hes. Th. 380 (with West ad
loc.) and 405, [Hes.] Sc. 6, Ov. Met. 3.90 dum spatium victor victi con-
siderat hostis (with Bömer’s n.). This is yet another confirmation of
Hermes’ divine status (cf. 138 , 142 (): the polypto-
ton “express[es] matching status or reciprocal relationship”; cf. West
(2007, 111–16).
ρ " : a speech introduction found always in the same sedes
(cf. 218, Il. 11.647, 18.391, Od. 8.302, 14.494, h.Apol. 256, 286, h.Hom.
360 Commentary
7.54). Its subject is always the same as that of the preceding verb (at Il.
7.277–78 !!) # $φ !
!/, ρ |
<
#I« the grammatical subject is provided in the verse following this
clausula, but it is subsumed in the verb preceding it [!/]). This verse
is the only one in which we have a change of subject.
155–156 ‘Why … and from whence are you coming here in the night …?’
155 … " is a variation of the Homeric formula «

* « $ (e.g. Il. 21.150, Od. 1.170, 7.238).
is Wolf’s emendation for the MSS , and has locative sense
(‘hither’; cf. LSJ s.v. Ρ IV 2). * * seems to be a favorite phrase
with our poet; it recurs at 32 and 269 (but not in a locative sense), and
subsequently at Nonn. D. 10.96.
We may contrast Maia’s words here to the welcome of Hermes
at Calypso’s cave at Od. 5.87–88 , E / !* ,
)7)«, | *« φ)« ; (cf. … 3 /9 ( and )-

… $( ).
characterizes elsewhere almost exclusively Odysseus
(Il. 11.482, Od. 3.163, 7.168, 13.293, 22.115, 22.202, 22.281), and once
Zeus at h.Apol. 322 (with a pun on 7!). Only here and at 514 is it
used of Hermes (cf. 13 )1 , ¹)7(), and this may be
one of the links between him and Odysseus (see above, p. 65–66). But cf.
S. fr. 592.5 (lyr.) )7« Θ.
μ« & —9 : cf. 67n. and 7 ( μ« $))
, a formulaic doublet).
156 $ & is Homeric (Il. 1.149, 9.372), and Rader-

macher ad loc. considered it to belong to popular language. For the
metaphorical use of «, cf. further Il. 7.164 = 8.262 = 18.157
AF« $) 7, Od. 9.214 ≈ 9.514 )(
$) 7, Hp. Decent. 4 (IX 230) μ $1 κ
»! $φ ( λ $(, Pl. R. 457a $ κ $λ
¹ $φ. Notice that at 151 we were told of Hermes’ ac-
tual clothing (! $φ# c« )«).
$(, normally a negative quality, is celebrated in our Hymn;
cf. Cairns (1993, 159–60). At 382 Hermes claims to feel shame (o-
) towards Helios but to respect (S&) Apollo.
Lines 154–157 361
156b–159 ‘Now I truly ()) believe that you will pass next minute
(/) through this doorway under the hands of Leto’s son with ine-
scapable bonds around your flanks instead of living in the future as a
thief plundering in valleys.’
156b # ;% ≈ 282, again in the prediction of an evil. This

clausula is found later at Aratus 198 (Κ ! )# F).
157 N 5(): cf. Od. 18.73, 18.338, 18.389, Bacch. 5.89–91, all of which
introduce a threat or the prediction of a negative situation.
Most editors print a disjunctive conjunction here following Barnes,
but 159 would be odd as a threat (cf. AS ad loc.; AHS however print two
disjunctive -’s here and at 159). has _ /#, whereas M offers the un-
metrical 1!/. Bywater’s κ /() is no real improvement; in this ex-
pression 7 does not introduce a clause but always follows a conjunction:
Ρ (in the phrase $))# Ρ κ /# 3)); Il. 10.365, 11.181, 23.773, Od.
4.514, 9.378), Ρ (Od. 2.48), 7 (= b 7, Od. 18.10), s (Od. 20.393).
Radermacher considered ’s _ /# a scribal correction and printed
1!/# (i.e. 1!/, ‘hard to fight against,’ a vocative referring to
Hermes) $7/ !. But there is no reason to alter _ /().
$5 : Homer has ! (e.g. Il. 18.379) and !
(e.g. Il. 22.468); ! recurs in h.Hom. 7.13, Thgn.459, Arat. 203, 242;
cf. [Hes.] fr. 37.4 !μ $ ξ« 3/. The standard epic formula
for bonds is !) $ )) (with variants; cf. Od. 11.293, 12.161,
15.232, 15.444; Hes. Th. 522, 718; h.Hom. 7.12), but S)*« (Hes. Th.
501), !()7« (Hes. Th. 652), $) « (Hes. Th. 659), or
*«/ *« (Il. 5.386, Od. 8.336, Hes. Th. 618, 718; [Hes.] fr.
195.43, h.Herm. 409), and /)*« or ()7« are also used (Il. 5.391,
10.443). The bonds that Zeus fabricated were of course golden and un-
breakable (Il. 15.18–19), while the knot Circe taught Odysseus was
) (Od. 8.448).
On account of gods’ immortality, bonds were the only available
way to restrain them; cf. Il. 1.401, 5.386, Hes. Th. 521–22, 618, 718. We
should bear in mind that Hermes already has ! around his body,
i.e. his swaddling-clothes; cf. h.Apol. 129 C# 3 ! !# 7 3
7 ! # M U; ! !# p; !# Barnes.

362 Commentary
(of Apollo’s swaddling-clothes). Apollo will attempt to do what Maia

phrases as a threat but to no avail; cf. 409–14.
158 ] C : the matronymic does not occur in Homer, but it is

found in [Hes.] fr. 51.3 (of Asclepius), [Hes.] Sc. 479, Alc. 67.3, Alcm.
48, ‘Simon.’ AP 6.212.2 (= FGrE 937), Thgn. 1120, Pi. P. 1.12, 3.67, 4.3,
4.259, 9.5, N. 9.53, Bacch. 3.39, IG I3 1469.1 (Ptoion, 540BC? –
restored), SEG 33: 716.1 (earlier than 446/5 BC; Cairns 1983b, 30–37
proposes that [[] U refers to Artemis; contra Hansen [1984] who
supports the usual identification with Apollo) etc.; we meet the genitive
form [(U at A.R. 1.439, 484, 4.612 etc.
Neither Hermes nor Apollo address each other using their proper
names; instead they use periphrases containing the matronymic; cf.
Vergados (2011a, 18 n. 44).
Dμ 5: often coupled with ( (‘subdue’ hence ‘kill’; cf. Il.
2.860 = 874 $))# ( Kμ / !λ @ « A , 3.352, 6.368,
8.344, 10.452, 15.2, 16.438, 20.94, 20.143, 23.675, Od. 18.156). Even
when ( is not employed, the idea of death is nevertheless pres-
ent; cf. Il. 11.179–80, 16.698–99, 19.62, 24.638, Od. 24.97. Il. 22.65
') « L« S)9
« Kμ / !λ #A/ is somewhat closer in
sense to our verse and is the only instance where the death of an adver-
sary is not implied. Since the idea of death would be out of place here,
the formula has been adapted to reflect the harshest punishment for
gods, viz. imprisonment in Tartarus; cf. 256–59.
ξ "' : cf. 271. For * , cf. Il. 15.124
(at Olympus), Od. 18.101, 18.386 (Odysseus’ palace), 21.299 (Peiri-
thoos’ palace). Hermes’ cave is once again envisioned as a *«; cf.
23n.
For » ‘going through, crossing,’ cf. Il. 5.646, 12.53, 12.200,
12.218, 23.71, Od. 10.508, 11.158, 24.118, [Hes.] fr. 141.1. For the future
infinitive, cf. Arat. 198–99 Κ ! )# F | 1 ! 5!; but
cf. h.Herm. 282–84 _ ! )# F | … | !!. At 133 » was
used transitively.
159 At omits this verse. This may be due to the fact that 157 and 159
begin with ( or because of the homoeoteleuton in 158, 159.
?: ‘rather than,’ even though it is not preceded by a comparative; cf.
LSJ, s.v. B 1.
Lines 157–160 363
φ : ‘by pillaging’ = M; has )"*, perhaps a gloss. φ-

‘pillage’ need not be preceded by Ν; cf. LSJ s.v. φ VI 2 (at
Ar. Eq. 205 it is preceded by 4 &). The participle indicates sub-
sidiary rather than unrestrained action as is suggested in LSJ s.v. X 2 b
(cf. Radermacher [1904, 4] for attempts at emending this verse): i.e. ‘you
will live as a thief by pillaging’.
@ = Càssola, following Schmitt (1856).8 Cf. 125 !!.
<1, the MSS reading, would mean ‘in between’; cf. Il. 1.156,
Archil. 66, Hippon. 50.2, Arat. 321. Radermacher ad loc. accepted
<1 (between) and construed it with # Ν , but the parallels
cited above always contain two places or areas. <1 acquires tem-
poral sense (‘afterwards,’ ‘in the future,’ ‘in the meantime’) in later au-
thors; cf. LSJ s.v. I 2 b and Renehan (1982, 137). The corruption of
& to <1 occurs also at Hes. Op. 394 (O).
# Ν!: Ν is of course appropriate here since Hermes will
be living from stealing animals; cf. 286–88.
*φ' : see 67n. for the spelling. West renders ‘or else you’ll
give him the slip when he’s in the middle of carrying you through the
glens,’ but φ)(1 should mean ‘steal’: φ)7(« is the thief and not
the ‘deceiver’ despite the ancient lexicographers who associate it to
φ() (Hdn. Epim. p. 143 Boissonade, Zonar. col. 1805 Tittmann =
$
!). Besides, such a rendering misses the second part of Maia’s
threat. The point is that Hermes will be disgraced by being punished by
Apollo and thus he will not be able to lead the not-so-honorable life he
intends to.
Notice the rhyming effect (homoeoteleuton) between 7! and
φ)(1!.
160 0 : ‘go away to where you came from,’ i.e. leave the cave;
Hermes is going to cause trouble to both men and gods (cf. the poet’s
words at 576–78), and perhaps Maia envisions Apollo’s imminent arri-
val at the cave.
In Homer 0/0 is always followed by some derogatory term
in the vocative (cf. Il. 8.164, 24.239; Thgn. 601, AP 5.175.7 [= HE 4360],
5.184.6 Meleager [= HE 4375], 7.433.5 Tymnes [= HE 3624, 3626–27],
8 Schmitt also emended φ into μ (&).

364 Commentary
9.134.6 (poet unknown but alluding to Il. 8.164), 16.137.5 Philip [= GP

3100]). The combination 3 ) is not attested elsewhere.
Agar (1924) and Radermacher ad loc. took 3 ) to mean ‘go
back to the womb’, and Radermacher compared with S. OC 1224–27
(κ φ μ Ϊ | ) » )*· μ #, λ φ9
, | "

Ρ D| )L 1 ³« /!), but the sentiment there is
different.
! κ &φ' : the asyndeton here is ex-
planatory; cf. 79n. An abstract noun is sometimes used predicatively to
a birth; see West on Hes. Th. 55. For the general idea, cf. [Hes.] fr. 248
(on Heracles) τ «, _ ) 7 ! ( * λ Ν ! | ZL«
! 7 ; and above, p. 118–19 for the allusion to this passage
in Call. fr. 177.14 (= SH 259.14).
For , see 44n.
For φ' = ‘sowing evils’ (with *, φ*,
; cf., e.g.,
Il. 15.134, Od. 2.165, 5.340, 14.110, 14.218, 15.178, 17.27, 17.82, 17.159,
Pi. N. 4.59, Eleg.Adesp. 61.4 IEG (
# φ1 [! " «]). φ1!
is to be understood here both metaphorically and literally: Hermes is
begotten by Zeus as well as sown as an evil for humans and gods alike.
161 " )« $ "6 λ $" " ): Not a mere polar ex-
pression (= ‘for everybody’), but each of its members should be taken
literally; cf. Kemmer (1903, 77–79). For Hermes’ harm to humans, cf.
576–78. For his acting as a nuisance even to the immortals, cf. Alc. 308b
(=Hymn to Hermes), Hor. Carm. 1.10, Luc. DDeor. 11, where he is said
to have stolen Poseidon’s trident, Ares’ sword, Apollo’s bow and ar-
rows, Hephaestus’ fire-tongues, Aphrodite’s girdle, and Zeus’s sceptre.
162–183 Hermes’ reply

162 κ # E« '" $< : cf. 260, 463. This
speech-introduction as a whole does not occur outside the Hymn, but
its components are formulaic: for */κ () + name + 1!
$", cf. Il. 3.171; for )!, cf. Od. 8.548* ( (ξ !L
7! )!, | Ρ !# F ). The only other
character who delivers a )« « is Odysseus at Od. 6.148
(Heracles’ )« « at Call. Dian. 152 is a reminiscence of the
Odyssean passage; cf. Bornmann ad loc. and Kyriakou [1995, 108–10]).
Lines 160–163 365
«: ‘wily, cunning’ is not the appropriate sense here.

Hermes is not concealing his thoughts (this is the implication from Od.
8.548 quoted above); on the contrary, he is quite frank about his inten-
tions. In all of Hermes’ speeches introduced with this verse, the young
god seeks to achieve a profit of some sort: here, he aims at establish-
ing his status in his own household and states his Lebensprogramm;
at 260 he wants Apollo to lead him to Zeus and to Olympus; at 463 he
asks for tutelage over animals and (implicitly) the gift of prophecy.
Thus the sense of « must have been felt, and we should under-
stand )« as ‘intending to obtain (some) profit’; cf. LfgrE s.v.
163–164 ‘Mother, why are you trying to scare me like an infant child
who has very few unseemly thoughts in his mind – a fearful one – and is
afraid of his mother’s reproaches?’
These lines resemble Il. 20.200–202, 431–33 P()U(, κ κ -
!! (1 —« | 3) <!, λ !φ ρ λ Cμ« |
ξ « # F!) 7!! (where two warriors taunt
each other in battle) and Il. 16.7–9 ! P * )«,
1 1 ( | ((, D # Ϊ ( λ !# $)! $@ | ¹
4(. The poet has combined these models and transferred them
from a military context to a domestic scene, in which the speaker, far
from being a warrior, is truly a 7«. For the convoluted style of this
address, cf. 208–10 and Od. 9.25–27 (Cκ ξ /)κ (
4)λ | μ« &*φ, ¹ # Ν μ« # )* , |
(/#, $))# $κ *φ«). For another possible instance of
parodistic adaptation of an Iliadic passage in Hermes’ speech to Maia,
see 174n.
163 &, : cf. Od. 1.346 for another brash retort of a son to his
mother, on which see Clark (2001).
is Pierson’s (1830, 109–10) emendation for the MSS
1! (‘to prepare’ or ‘aim’; a reduplicated form of 1/; per-
haps a Hörfelher made during dictation). Words can certainly be aimed
at someone, but the double accusative construction is not used with this
sense; besides, ") and K at 165 lend support to
! .
! ! can be used instead of !!! (a causative of
, hence ‘to scare’; cf. Stesich. S11.5–6 SLG 7 [
366 Commentary
φ *]| ! [# $ *])9, but it can also

stand for ! ! (to greet, toast someone; cf. Od. 15.150 and
Forssman [1978]). The poet may be exploiting this ambiguity as the
verse could equally be rendered (with a touch of irony) as ‘why are you
greeting me with these (words) …’
Radermacher quotes S. Ph. 1188–89 (τ L« 1«, !# 3 ") |
1<;), but 1/ is used there as a synonym of ». Humbert
printed the MSS reading and translated “pourquoi vouloir m’atteindre
en ces paroles” for which, however, we would expect a genitive and a
dative; cf. LSJ s.v. ˘1! II 1.
163–164 ' | : cf. 151–52n.
164 χ« 3 φλ ; ρ = ; M offers χ« )

)) λ φ !λ Ν ρ (‘who knows many orderly things in his
mind’; Ν sc. () ). AHS believed that both versions of the line
mean the same thing and opted for ’s reading which they considered
more effective. Radermacher alone introduced M’s reading into his text
and rendered “wohlerzogen” (‘well-mannered’) which is out of place
here. Il. 20.200ff. (quoted above) suggests that F!) is preferable;
Ν may have arisen as an attempt to restore the sense after )
was corrupted into ) )). However, we cannot rule out
the possibility that these may be performance variants; on such vari-
ants, see 563n.
165 < occurs first here, and subsequently at S. Tr. 957 (lyr.),
Euph. 51.15 (p. 40 CA), and 19x in Nonnus. Derived from "«, it is
formed by analogy to its opposite !«: !)« (“Konträrbil-
dung”); cf. Zumbach 16. Adjectives in -)« became frequent in post-
Homeric hexameter poetry due to their metrical convenience, the suffix
preceded by a long syllable and thus forming a choriamb; cf. De-
brunner (1909) and idem (1917, 165–68) §328–34.
") is parenthetic, as it interrupts the two relative clauses χ«
) ). and λ ( μ« ).
*D : Homer has K, e.g. Il. 1.406, 5.521.
12.413, Od. 9.377, 10.296, 16.425 (cf. [Hes.] Sc. 98 K!«); so too
9 φ Page, Davies; *-] Barrett.

Lines 163–166 367
at A.R. 3.318, 3.435, 4.394. Contrast Od. 2.66 K˘!. All this
points to an original *Ko-ζ- > K-- > Ko--/K--; the MSS
consistently represent this as --, and at Od. 9.396 there is a v.l.
!«-; cf. LfgrE, s.v. , col. 229.22–24; Apoll.Soph. p. 157.28
Bekker quotes K! . Patzer (1970, 645–46) reconstructs the
semantic development of K* by positing two metaphorical meanings:
(i) ‘under the power of,’ hence > ‘depending on’, ‘under the influence/
effect of’, understood in three possible place-relations: where to? (e.g.
K!!), whence? (e.g. K/ ), and where? (K belongs
here); the latter leads also to the meanings ‘accompaniment’ (e.g.
K) ) and ‘somewhat’ (e.g. K "); and (ii) ‘support’: con-
cretely (e.g. K!( &) or in a mental sense ‘help’ (e.g. K,
Kφ().
& «: in Homer 7 (‘rebuke’) is usually uttered by a male char-
acter (a king: Il. 4.402, 5.492, 14.404, Od. 10.448; the suitors: Od.
20.266; a god: Od. 5.446) and rarely by a woman: Il. 3.438 (Helen to
Paris) and 24.768 (the Trojan women to Helen): in both these cases
is used.
166–167 ‘But I will introduce myself (lit. enter upon) the art that is the
best, taking care of myself and you thoroughly.’
166 5 « &< : cf. Hes. Th. 395–96 μ # 3φ# … |

« λ
"(! (with West ad loc.) where Zeus promises to allot
divine honours. Closer in sense to our passage is Hes. Op. 658–59 μ
ξ Ω M1!9 (!# E) !!# $( | 3 μ
)
« "(! $
« (‘where they introduced me to the art of
singing’).
For " with an abstract notion, cf. Il. 8.285 ( )(«), Od.
22.424 ($(«) and 23.13 (!φ !1(«). Instead of being intro-
duced by someone else into this best art, Hermes is going to introduce
himself. We have already seen him introducing himself to various arts
(he constructs the lyre, improvises a hymn, creates the fire-sticks).
/(« … D « $ !( is explained by " ) in the following
line: Hermes’ best art will be cattle-theft; in essence, the cattle-thief says
that he will look after himself and his mother as a herdsman looks after
his cattle!
368 Commentary
167 < % : the MSS offer ")1; " ) was proposed
by Ludwich 103; this is graphically closer to the MSS reading than
all the emendations proposed;10 cf. also Il. 14.445 where a papyrus
(P.Lit.Lond. 22 = 899 M–P3 = Allen’s P10) offers "j 2) (i.e.
written above the line). " ) means ‘to tend cattle,’ and from Ae-
schylus on it can mean ‘beguile’; cf. LSJ s.v. II. For its sense here, cf.
in Pi. I. 5.12 1 &»« Ν
μ Ν)! (‘there are only two things that cherish the sweetest
flower of life’), A. Eu. 90–92 E
, φ1)!!, # φ @« |
« F!, * μ | ¹ (, Anacr. 348.7–8 C
$( « | « )7«, and Hsch. " 908 " )7!:
7!. At Men. Sam. 596 " ) means ‘cheat’; cf.
Gomme-Sandbach ad loc.
&ξ λ : is emphatic and in keeping with Hermes’ effort to
assert his position, though the first person is often mentioned first; cf.
Il. 10.43, 22.265, Od. 19.569, h.Dem. 396, E. Alc. 264–65, 404–405, HF
96, Tr. 405, El. 1094–95, IA 1181, Or. 736, Ar. Ach. 991, Av. 1190, And.
1.117, X. HG 4.1.8, Cyr. 4.5.25 (following up with a second and first
person in chiasmus), Pl. Cri. 44b, Cra. 392b, Dem. 21.19, 33.16, A.R.
3.678 etc.
«: has its temporal sense ‘continually, without inter-
ruption.’ The literal, spatial sense is ‘right through’ and it often appears
in Homer with reference to wounds (e.g. Il. 5.112, 5.284, 5.658, 12.429,
13.547, 16.640). See Schmitt (1967, 231–32) §476–77.
167–168 " ) | … # $" : + dat. often means ‘among’

and indicates the membership in a group; cf. 170 # $«
S & and 468. Here however it has the sense ‘to complete (the
number of the immortals)’; cf. LSJ s.v. B II. Hermes is not a
member of the Olympian pantheon yet.
168 $6 λ Ν : ‘not bestowed with gifts and not prayed
to.’ Most MSS offer Ν! for Ν)!; some have Ν! with )
superscript, while A and Q read Ν)!, a vox nihili. Ν (the
reading of E and T) was rightly adopted by Schneidewin (1848, 674).
10 Van Herwerden (1876) 74: S)"; Schneider (with the approval of van Herwerden 1888):
S)"&; Agar (1924): .
Lines 167–170 369
Ν! ‘not having eaten or tasted’ would yield poor sense here. Its
presence in this line may be explained by the influence of the high
number of adjectival phrases with negative prefix that refer to fasting;
see Richardson on h.Dem. 200 ($)!« Ν!« …
«). LSJ
gloss Ν)! as ‘inexorable’, but here it should be rendered ‘not prayed
to’: Hermes wants his divine status to be recognized by mortals as well;
this implies their praying to him.
Both adjectives occur here for the first time. $@ (« recurs at
E. Hec. 42 and Theoc. 16.7. Ν)!« is subsequently found at A. Ag.
412–3 (lyr.); but cf. ))!«, ))!«, )1))!«, and
Ν))!« ( ))!«: Il. 8.488, Call. Cer. 138; )1))!«: Od. 5.445,
h.Dem. 28, h.Apol. 347, Bacch. 11.41; Ν))!«: Euph. fr. 98.4 [p. 47
CA], AP 7.643.3 [= GP 1875, Crinagoras], App.Anth. Epigr. Sepulcr.
699.2 [p. 208 Cougny], of Hades/Aidoneus).
Ridgeway (1888, 108–109) objected to Ν)! on the grounds
that its compound cognates always have – )) – and that there is an an-
tithesis between )1!, $φ*, ))7 on the one hand, and
$@ ( and Ν)! on the other; while this works for )1!,
$φ* : $@ (, it does not for Ν)! : ))7. He therefore
proposed $)7 that is found in Il. 1.125 (cf. 126 $ 7). But the
$- privative and the ending -! are certain on the MSS. And Hermes
is after honour, not only wealth for wealth’s sake; therefore Ν)!
should not be doubted. $@ ( is sufficient for the antithesis with
the three adjectives of line 171, and Ν)! adds another dimension,
that of recognition by the mortals; cf. 172–73
« and ²!(«.
For the collocation of two compound adjectives with $- privative,
cf. 80n.
169 : 9 is contemptuous in view of 172 Ν ) *.

« $ 8"(): the plural seems to imply that Hermes is
trying to change Maia’s position as well as his; cf. 167 " ) ξ
λ !. But this does not happen in the poem, as apart from a passing
mention at 229–30 and 244 Maia is forgotten after this exchange with
Hermes.
170 >@ : cf. 58 where % &! refers to erotic conversations be-

tween Zeus and Maia. Here it means ‘converse’ without any erotic
undertones; for this use, cf. Od. 19.178–79 M« … | … :μ« )
370 Commentary
S !7«, h.Hom. 23.3 (Z1«) >! | … L« S « S &.

[Pl.] Min. 319e, quoting Od. 19.179, notes ¹ R )* !, λ
S !κ« !!!7« ! )*« (cf. further Il. 13.291
/ S !1, 17.228 ) S !1«).
171 ' , $φ , : Hermes makes his point emphati-

cally. )1!« does not occur in Homer, who has )« (cf. Il.
1.171, combined with Νφ«; 16.596, 24.536, Od. 14.206 combined
with R)") . We find )1!« at Hes. Op. 22. At h.Dem. 489 it is
P)« who bestows Νφ« on humans).
$φ*« designates wealth in precious objects (Il. 6.47–48 7):
/) *«, / !*«, )1 (« !( «, Od. 1.165 / !*« and !7«),
arable land and animals (Il. 14.122–24), or animals alone (Il. 20.220–22);
cf. also the objects that Hermes covets at 179–81.
))7« may designate people as here or places ())7«
of people: Il. 5.613 ) 7 ))7«, A.R. 1.51–52 ))7
E | ¹«, 2.507; of places: e.g. [Hes.] fr. 240.1–3, A.R. 1.580,
1.937, 4.267). It may be derived from )7 (‘standing crop’ or ‘corn
field’) and hence mean ‘rich in land,’ but the ancients etymologized it
also from ); cf. D (ZYQ) Il.5.613 ² )) )7 3/ ν ))
3/, ) «. ) ξ ) λ )
)φ ν $μ )9 (!«. The occurrences of ))7« in our texts
support both interpretations (fields: Il. 5.613; flocks: [Hes.] fr. 240.1–3,
where $φκ 7)! λ )*!! "*!! may have triggered the
interpretation ‘rich in flocks’); here it may refer to land-based wealth
(i.e. ( dedicated to Hermes), animals (cf. 567–71), or goods that
Hermes has stolen and which are thus his booty (such as Apollo’s cattle).
At 335 Apollo protests against Zeus’s implying that he is φ))7«.
3 - is regularly employed of constructed dwellings: the
gods’ abodes, of aristocratic palaces ( of gods’ abodes: Il.
14.257, h.Apol. 2, h.Aphr. 204; of palaces: e.g. Il. 4.386, 22.442, 22.478,
Od. 1.228, 2.247, 3.428, 4.44, 4.720, 7.103, 17.329). At Il. 24.512
@() designates Achilles’ hut. Here, in view of Ν ) *,
is used either incongruously (‘in our home/palace, in the
gloomy cave …’) or colourlessly (‘at home’).
172 Ν )% & does not occur elsewhere in archaic epic, but
the poet treats it as a formula: it recurs in the same sedes at 359 and
Lines 170–173 371
modified at 234; it is subsequently found at [Orph.] H. 69.4* and (modi-

fied) at Q.S. 12.449–50.
« is generally reserved in early epic for Tartarus or &*φ«
‘darkness of the underworld’ ( *« with Tartarus: Il. 8.13, Hes. Th.
119, 682, [721], [723a], 736, 807, [Hes.] fr. 30.22; with &*φ«: Il. 12.240,
15.191, 21.56, 23.51, Od. 11.57, 11.155, Hes. Th. 653, 658, 729, [Hes.] fr.
280.23, h.Dem. 80, 337, 402, 446, 464, h.Herm. 256). Ν ) *
contributes to the shifting presentation of Hermes’ cave; cf. 23n.
" : ‘sitting,’ implies idleness and intentionally keeping a
low profile; cf. LfgrE s.v. !! (col. 957.13–15 “als hier zu hocken,”
‘rather than cowering here’).
172–173 ‘As for honour, I, too, will obtain (lit. enter upon) the same
rightful share as Apollo.’
172 $φλ ξ «: cf. h.Dem. 85 (7) with Richardson ad loc. This
phrase is a colon by itself, distinct from ²!(«. For this sense of $φ
(‘concerning …’, ‘as for …’) the dative could also be used; cf LfgrE, s.v.
$φ C III 4, D 2–3; LSJ, s.v. A I 2; and Schneidewin’s emendation 9
or Gemoll’s 9
«.
is used of a god’s sphere of influence; cf. Hes. Th. 74, 112 (with
West on both verses), 203, 393, 399. It is sometimes combined with
, Νφ«, and , which shows that 7 can be understood
also in a material sense (i.e. honour that consists of or is measured in
goods); this is its sense here (cf. 168, 171, 178–81). This form of 7 is
normally awarded by Zeus or distributed by the gods (cf. Il. 15.187–93
and the Hesiodic passages cited above), but Hermes intends to acquire
it on his own through /( (= wiles and theft).
173 $!6: Homer has always λ @, though some MSS offer $@ at
Il. 21.108; here we could read λ @ with synecphonesis. The same
applies to other examples of crasis in Homer; cf. Chantraine GH I
84–85 (§35).
« ²« &< : on " cf. 166. For the meaning of
²!( (‘rightful share’), see 130n. Hermes stakes here his claim to a share
of 7 equal to Apollo’s. ²!( designates the honours that are due a
god (gifts and prayers; cf. 168). Clay Politics 128–31, following the
broader definition of ²!( offered by Benveniste (1969, II 198) “that
372 Commentary
which divine law prescribes for men”, i.e. worship, suggests that
Hermes is confused here, not about his divine status (this is clear by
now) but about the workings of the Olympian system, in which a god’s
²!( depends on his/her having clearly defined , which is not the
case with Hermes yet. “What Hermes ought to say is: ‘I want timai (e.g.,
prophecy or cattle-herding) equal to those Apollo possesses, and then I
will be as rich in hosie as he’.” (Clay, op.cit. 130–31).
174–175 ‘If my father does not give me (sc. my 7), then I myself will
attempt (sc. to acquire it); (for) I can be the leader of thieves.’
Two ways of punctuating are possible here: (i) _ 3 |
7! (1) φ)( R /« ρ; so Bothe (comparing
Od. 5.25), accepted by AS/AHS who remark on the Hymn’s ‘staccato’
style; (ii) _ 3 | 7!α 1 φ)( R /« ρ
(so Ilgen, Agar), which seems to me preferable: Hermes will not attempt
to become the leader of thieves; he has already proven his abilities in
this domain and soon enough he will receive confirmation from Apollo
(cf. 292 $ /μ« φ)( )7! - ). For the explicative
asyndeton, cf. p. 237. Besides, the particle transmitted after 1
in all our MSS suggests that 1 must have been perceived by
some as the beginning of a clause that had somehow to be connected
with the one preceding.
174 + κ 69 κ &«: cf. Il. 1.324 κ @9

(!, Ω
Cμ« Q), where Agamemnon threatens to take Briseis
from Achilles himself. If this is a deliberate reminiscence of the Iliadic
passage, it would increase the comedy of the scene, since the words that
led to a fateful quarrel between two military leaders are put into the
mouth of an infant god. Zanetto (1996, 268), who accepts the idea of an
allusion to the Iliad here, speaks of an Archilochean Weltanschauung in
these verses and detects in 174 a parody of Agamemnon’s words in Il.
1.137 ( κ @!, Ω Cμ« Q)). See above, p. 32.
This phrase contributes to the comedy of the scene in another way
as well: the gods are described in extremely anthropomorphic terms:
the youngest son (whose paternity has not really been acknowledged
yet) covets the older son’s possessions and threatens to appeal to the
father; cf. Richardson (2007, 86–88).
For Zeus as the distributor of divine honours, cf. 172n.
Lines 173–177 373
175 %: in Homer this verb appears usually in the middle voice
(e.g. Il. 2.73, 5.279, 19.70, Od. 4.417, 6.126, 8.184, 9.174, 21.282); for
the active form, cf. Il. 12.300–301 (= Od. 6.133–34; ) ' μ«
$7 / ) ' !κ | 7) 7! λ « * -
μ ), of Sarpedon/Odysseus attacking their enemies compared to
a lion), Il. 19.30, Od. 2.316.
φ% 25 «: for the scansion of φ)(, cf. 292, Call.
Hec. 74.24, Epigr.Gr. 1108 (quoted at 67n.).
25 « is used in Homer of military leaders and kings in the
clausula R /« (etc.) $ (cf. Il. 2.837, 6.99, 14.102, 17.12,
19.289, 21.221, Od. 3.400, 4.156, 4.291, 4.316, 10.538, 15.64, 15.87,
15.167, [Hes.] fr. 12.2, 204.52, 301; at Od. 17.184 and 20.185 R /«
$ is used of Eumaeus and Phoelitius respectively).
For Hermes as the leader of thieves, cf. [E.] Rh. 216–17 $))# σ !# ²
M« « ! λ ) | 5 E
«, Ρ« φ()( Ν<,
and Epigr.Gr. 1108.
176 Radermacher thought that this verse echoes h.Apol. 182 on ac-
count of the identical clausula ([(« « ¹*«) and the fact
that Pytho is mentioned soon after both verses. However, this similarity
need not be due to a reminiscence of h.Apol. [(« « ¹*« oc-
curs also at 189 and 416 and is formulaic (cf. Il. 14.327 [(« -
«; Od. 11.576 f(« « ¹*, h.Herm. 89 and 550 M(«
« ¹*«/¹, h.Hom. 7.1 )(« « ¹* also at verse-
end). As for the reference to Pytho at 178ff., this is motivated by the fact
that Apollo’s temple would be a good source for material gain for
Hermes who is φ))7« and desires his brother’s position and pos-
sessions.
+ # & : ‘if he tracks me down’; cf. 218 and Il. 18.321
)) # Ν
) # $ « F/# (of a lion whose
cubs have been stolen by a man), Od. 19.435–36 μ # Ν # C | F/#
« 1« -!.
177 Ν … λ )@ : ‘some other bad thing, and even greater
(i.e. worse),’ sc. than what has happened to him now, a euphemism;
cf. 255 C *!, Hes. Op. 344 /
… Ν)) (with West’s n.),
Theoc. 24.40 3! @ ; so often Ν))« or
Q «; see Caroli (1999, 52) and López Eire (1999, 330–31).
374 Commentary
¹ … $ < : usually the subject of $") (‘fall to one’s

lot,’ LSJ, s.v. I 4) is personal; but cf. Od. 18.272–73 Ρ κ ! μ«
« $")7! | … .
178 +« P"- : for this form of the accusative, cf. Il. 2.519, Pi. O.
6.37, 9.12, P. 11.9, Bacch. 8.17, Call. Dian. 250. P@ is also found:
h.Apol. 183, [Hes.] fr. 60.2, Bacch. 3.62, Hdt. 1.54.1, [A.] Pr. 658,
E. Andr. 52, Call. Apol. 100, fr. 18.7 (suppl.).
! $ % : cf. 283 and Il. 10.267 where we read
that Autolycus, reputedly a grandson of Hermes, stole μ *
$ 7!«. A denominative from *$ «, $ occurs
also at Il. 5.337 (Diomedes wounding Aphrodite) ρ ξ * / μ«
$* (! (cf. Opp. Hal. 3.556). The process referred to here was
known as / / in classical times, and / 1/« was used in
Comedy as a term of abuse; cf. Ar. Nu. 1327, Pl. 909, 1141, Amips. 23,
Antiph. 204.5, Men. Dysc. 447, 588 etc.
For ! = ‘temple,’ see 251n.
Notice the paronomastic $")7! … $ 7!.
179–181 The temple of Apollo at Delphi was famous for the wealth of
its dedications; see Parke and Wormell (1956, 126–31, 150). This is
stressed here by the anaphora of Ϊ)« at 179–80. But the goods that
Hermes covets can already be found in Maia’s cave: cf. 61 λ
« ρ (1« )"(« and 249–50 ))μ« ξ
/ !*« λ Ν « 3 3 | )) ξ φ * λ
Ν φ b 1φ(«. The surviving inventories attest to the pres-
ence of similar objects in temples; cf. IG I3 305–36, 318, 331–32; cf.
Thompson (1965a, 227), idem (1965b, 307), Hill (1966); further Ales-
hire (1989, 103–11) on temple inventories in general; and on clothing
dedicated in temples, see IG II2 1533.102–3 (a 1φ)«; = Ales-
hire’s Inventory III), IG II2 1514–30, and Cleland (2005) on the inven-
tories of Brauron. See p. 244 and 403–404 for the ‘transformation’ of
Hermes’ cave to a temple.
Lines 179–81 may be based on Od. 13.217–18 (the gifts Odysseus re-
ceived from the Phaeacians) γ« Ω « ))« ξ
)"(« | λ / !μ Kφ b ) (the only other
instance in which ))7« is used of a tripod).
Lines 177–183 375
180 "%: cf. Od. 14.263–64 = 17.432–33 ρ5 )# A

$ ))« $ L« | * …, possibly a ‘parallel of
sound’; cf. 108n. is a parallel form of and like
it can mean both ‘plunder’ (as here) and ‘conquering a city.’
;"% : elsewhere used of weapons or tools made of iron;
cf. Il. 4.485, 20.372, Hes. Op. 743, S. Aj. 147 (lyr.). At Ar. Pax 1328
F !( is used metonymically for war; but it is also thought of
as a valuable item, e.g. Il. 7.473, Od. 1.184.
181 4 # 2B ; # &"9 ": cf. Il. 4.353, 8.471, 9.359, Od. 24.511
(R5, ν )9 (!/F # )9 (!, all at verse-beginning): in all
these cases, a character promises or threatens to perform a deed of mili-
tary valour that is going to prove his worth, power, or honour; the
Hymn poet adapts this phrase to Hermes’ situation, and the deed that is
going to prove his status is a theft; cf. 163–64n.
182 A combination of γ« ¹ ξ μ« $))7)« $*

(Il. 8x, Od. 16x) and Od. 10.34 ¹ # Q !! μ« $))7)«
$* , often followed by a change of subject (e.g. Il. 5.274–75,
5.431–32, 13.81–83, 16.101–102, 21.514–15, Od. 4.620–21, 7.334–35,
8.333–34, 14.409–10, 16.321–22, 24.98–99 etc.), while at Il. 7.464 there
is also change of day. Here this formulaic verse has been expanded
through an enjambed line that contains two formulas describing the
conversing characters (182), while the change of day follows after this
expansion.
&: cf. above, p. 64 n. 58.
183 ¹« # +!5 « is a modification of ¹μ« :μ« */ (Il.

5.396) used of Heracles.
M): cf. 19n. M’s 7( must be due to the much com-
moner clausula * 7( (20x in the Il., 13x in the Od., 3x in
h.Dem.). Notice that the poet does not say that Maia was conversing
with her son, but that she was conversing with the son of Zeus, as if try-
ing to associate Hermes more with Zeus’s world instead of Maia’s.
376 Commentary
184–211 Apollo at Onchestos

The second day begins. Apollo realizes that his cattle have been stolen
and begins his search. His investigation leads him to Onchestos where
he meets the same Old Man whom Hermes had encountered on the pre-
vious day. We are not told how Apollo discovered that his cows were
missing or where he had gone before his arrival at Onchestos. This led
Matthiae 252 to propose that some lines must have dropped out before
this section, in which Apollo noticed that his animals were missing and
embarked on his search. A lacuna, however, is not necessary here. The
rhythm of the narration is not stable throughout the text, and the poet,
interested in representing the conflict between the two divine brothers,
is speeding up the pace; besides, Apollo himself gives a brief account of
these events at 340ff.
Shelmerdine (1986, 59–60) suggests that the depiction of the Old
Man in the Hymn is based on Laertes in the Odyssey. These similarities
are: (i) 187–88 3 | @) i ξ< ²
Q « $)
« (but see below on @)) ~ Od. 24.224–25 ¹!«
)<« $)
« 3 Q « | F/(); cf. 87 $!
$)7; (ii) 90 τ Ρ« φ ! « 1)« c« (but
cf. 90n.) and 207 3! λ μ $)
« (cf. Od.
1.193) ~ Od. 24.226–27 μ # ρ # i 9 ( $)9
|
)! 1 φ* and 24.242 ² ξ / φ)κ φμ $φ-
)/; (iii) 90, 190 τ ~ Od. 24.244. However, (i) the Odyssey
passage refers to the younger men who worked with Laertes on the
farm and not to Laertes himself; (ii) at 90 I read 1) »); at
any rate the fact that both men, being old, are bent with age is not a
strong parallel, nor is (iii) the address τ as Shelmerdine herself
acknowledges on p. 60 n. 38. Thus, while there are certainly verbal simi-
larities between the Hymn and the Odyssey, we would be pressing the
evidence if we were to suggest that the Old Man character constitutes
an allusion to Laertes. In addition, how does the poet’s “trans-
formation of the old man into a Laertes figure…add a further implicit
comparison of Hermes with Odysseus” (p. 60), when the Old Man is not
the central hero’s father (or as important a character) as Laertes is?
And why then would the poet characterize this “Laertes figure” as a
@)?
Like lines 87–93, this scene too is a variation of the arrival scene; cf.
Lines 184–211, 184–185 377
Arend (1933, 28–34); lines 185–87a correspond to Arend’s part 2; (‘the

hero arrives’; part 1. ‘the hero sets out’ is omitted, but it is easily under-
stood that Apollo began his journey from Pieria); lines 187b–88 corre-
spond to part 3. (‘he finds the person he is seeking’; we are also told of
the Old Man’s activity); part 4. is omitted but also easily supplied from
the context, and finally part 5. consists of lines 189–200. In comparison
to 87–93 this is then a more straightforward adaptation of the arrival
scene.
184–185 #HΩ« # ! φ%« " ) φ | \ # $#

#_ ) <" : this phrase for the beginning of the new day re-
sembles the relevant Homeric formulae closely enough to suggest that
the Hymn poet knew them, but preferred to coin his own instead of
using the Homeric material wholesale; cf. Od. 5.1–2 #HΩ« # )/
# $ T | c #, b# $! φ*« φ ξ " -
!, and more closely Il. 19.1–2 #HΩ« ξ *)« $#
# W | R #, b# $! φ*« φ ξ " !.
By far the most common introduction of a new dawn in Homer is _«
# φ( W )« #H@« (2x in the Iliad, 18x in the
Odyssey). The poet could have used the regular Homeric formula and
begun the next verse with C #A*)), but as van Nortwick
(1975, 42–3), points out “Greek poets in general seem reluctant to
begin a sentence at the beginning of the verse if that sentence opens
with the name Apollo,” which may explain why the Hymn poet chose to
modify the Homeric formula here and at 185 (# " *).
Notice, however, that the modification of the Dawn-formula is not a
unique phenomenon; cf. 68–69n. (on the setting of the sun). Of course
one cannot exclude the possibility that this may simply be a formula
underrepresented in our sources.
φ%« " ) φ : when the arrival of Eos is followed by di-
vine action, she is said to bring light to both gods and humans: cf. at Il.
11.1–3 (Iris visits the Greek camp at Zeus’s behest), Il. 19.1–3 (Thetis ar-
rives at Achilles’ hut with the armour that Hephaestus crafted), and Od.
5.1–3 (the gods hold a council on Olympus in which they discuss Odys-
seus’ fate). Here, however, the gods are not mentioned at the arrival of
Eos. This may be related to the extremely anthropomorphic fashion in
which the divine characters are depicted in this Hymn and to the fact
that there is not even a hint of Apollo’s divine nature in his encounter
378 Commentary
with the Old Man; cf. Richardson (2007, 84–86). This and 513 are the
only instances in the poem in which there is no mention of ‘gods and
men.’
185 <" : "1 « is typically found as an attribute of the

Ocean river, and more rarely it describes different rivers (Ocean: Il.
7.422, 14.311, Od. 11.13, 19.434; Scamander: Il. 21.8; Eridanus: [Hes.]
fr. 150.23 [ # #H ] "[ ][*] W ). The poet
has modified a Homeric formula (" * # , always at
verse-end) which he could have used here, had he wished to.
:3 #A% recurs in the Iliad at places where Apollo inter-
feres forcefully in the action (Il. 16.728*, 21.515, 21.538*; cf. 21.435 in
the theomachy); at Thgn. 759 the poet prays that Apollo ‘may keep [his]
tongue and mind upright.’ Contrary to the Iliadic occurrences of this
phrase, here Apollo is going to appear unheroic and in a state of con-
fusion.
186 #O!5 (): for Onchestos, see 88n. In h.Apol. Onchestos is one

of the places that Apollo visits on his quest for a location suitable for es-
tablishing an oracle. Here he visits the same place in search of his lost
cattle, interviews the Old Man, and then receives a bird omen. The
Hermes poet may have had h.Apol. in mind (see p. 70–73), which would
render this scene ironical since the god of prophecy is presented as fol-
lowing the same route (from Pieria to Onchestos) as in the Hymn de-
voted to him, but this time in a state of $(/.
#O!5 # $φ 6 : cf. 70 P (« $φ , where
we meet again the structural formula ‘place-name + $φ + parti-
ciple of a verb of motion of the vc shape.’ This may suggest an im-
plicit comparison between the two gods: Hermes has a firm purpose,
for whose accomplishment he moves fast (cf. 43–46n., 88n., 109–14n.,
148n. and 150n.), while Apollo wanders not knowing where his cattle
are (this will change at 212).
186–187 Ν « | 4! : for the accumulation of epithets

with Ν)!« (a sacred grove), cf. Il. 2.506 #O/(!* # ¹ μ P!7
$)μ Ν)!«, Od. 6.321–22 )μ Ν)!« … | ¹ μ #A((«.
« is not typically found with Ν)!«. For Ν)!« 4*,
cf. Pi. O. 5.10 (cf. Hdt. 5.119.2 Ϊ).
Lines 184–186, 187–188 379
&φ! ‘loud-roaring’ occurs first here, but !φ !

is found at Od. 9.390, 440, and !φ & at Hes. Th. 706. !φ-
« is met again in Pi. fr. I. 6a.4 and Bacch. 5.20 (of Zeus). Plutarch
records in his Sympotic Quaestions (698e) that it was used as a synonym
of )*φ« (of humans). Hes. Th. 815 has ! «, while
Pi. I. 8.22 uses " !φ « (both of Zeus).
5 is found always in this sedes, but in most cases it is part of
a larger formula that includes !« or /« (with
!«: Il. 9.183, 13.43, 13.59, 13.677, 14.355, 15.222, 23.584, Od.
11.241, [Hes.] fr. 17a.13, 253.2; with /«: Il. 15.174, 15.201).
When it is not followed by either of these epithets, it is preceded by
Poseidon’s name (Il. 20.34 = Od. 8.322; Od. 1.68, 3.55, 8.350). In two
cases we encounter the most complete version of the formula:
P! 7/ / (Od. 9.528 ≈ h.Hom. 22.6) or P-
! 7o/ ! (Hes. Th. 15). Only at Il. 13.83 ≈
13.125 and here do we have 7/« alone. Borgeaud (1944) explains
it as “Gemahl der Gaia” (‘Gaia’s spouse’); cf. P! < **« :»«
in Kretschmer (1907, 27–28).
187–188 0 " ! | † 6 a ξ8 ² Z «

$%«: ‘there he found an old man […] working on (or: building) the
fence of his vineyard along the road.’ This is a highly troublesome pas-
sage, for which no satisfactory solution has been found. There are two
main questions here: first, what is the Old Man doing? And what are we
to make of the transmitted @)?
(i) vs.

The MSS at 188 offer , which was adopted by several edi-
tors who took it with @) to mean ‘pasturing his animal.’ While
can mean ‘to pasture an animal’ (cf. Od. 9.233 and Laroche
[1949, 23–24]), we would expect a qualification of this animal: gen-
erally, when @) is used of an animal, it is clear from the context
what type of animal is meant. Furthermore, if we accept that the Old
Man was pasturing an animal, then what are we to make of Q «
$)
«?
Gemoll defended the transmitted text (with the slight emendation
of @) to )) ) as meaning ‘he found an old man who let
his animal graze on at the vineyard’s fence.’ This assumes that the fence
380 Commentary
was made of thorny bushes, and yields both odd syntax and a strange
idea: the Old Man is in effect represented as destroying his vineyard’s
hedge.
AS (and AHS with more parallels) suggested that Q « $)
« is
to be taken with @) metaphorically, and rendered ‘he let his
‘beast,’ the stay of his vineyard, graze by the roadside.’ In this they con-
sidered Q « $)
« here to be a parody of Q « #A/ (= Ajax)
and Q « #O)1 (= Ares). But exactly how would such parody fit
in this context? ( 3 at 127 which AHS evoke as a parallel is a
different phenomenon, i.e. the re-literalization of a metaphor.) And
what animal would be the “stay of a vineyard”?
Rossbach’s (1916, 736) intepretation of the transmitted text is
equally problematic: he rendered @) as “der stechende (krat-
zende) Gegenstand” (i.e. ‘the stabbing or scraping object’, which the
Old Man presumably had) and compared Od. 24.224. But there the
fence is built with ¹!, i.e. stones; second, how could ,
which Rossbach keeps, express the building of a fence? (For the seman-
tics of @), see below.)
Radermacher, finally, took Q « $)
« to mean “eingefriedetes
Grundstück” (= ‘an enclosed estate’) which the Old Man inhabits
(= ); but this is not what the Greek says.
Besides, does not square with what we hear of the Old
Man elsewhere in the poem: at 87 he is introduced as $!
$)7; at 90 Hermes addresses him as being someone Ρ« φ
! ; finally, at 206–207 he says that he was digging in his vineyard.
Thus, Barnes’ emendation (building up, working on; cf. 87n.)
should be adopted: it further supports the parallelism between the visits
of the two gods to the Old Man.
(ii) ξ< ²μ Q « $)

«
This is unanimously transmitted by the MSS. and seems certain.
Evelyn-White’s (1914b, 376) # 3< Q « C)
« will not do
since C)7 (courtyard) presupposes the presence of a building
(a house), of which we hear nothing in the poem. The action is taking
place in the country-side where the farmers’ fields are located, away
from the habitated area.
Lines 187–188 381
(iii) @):
Normally, @) is a wild animal of the earth or the sea or a
beast of burden (cf. e.g. Od. 17.317, Hes. Th. 582, Pi. P. 10.36, N. 1.50,
Alcm. 89.5, [A.] Pr. 462, Theoc. 24.85, 25.183). Some critics took it here
as a reference to the Old Man (= an ugly Old Man; cf. Radermacher
who compares [Apollod.] 2.57 [= II 6] $)@(< ( and Aristaenet.
Ep. 1.1 K ) Ν for the construction); but this would be not only
hard on the Old Man, as Richardson (1977, 74) observes, but also out
of place: this is not the first appearance of the Old Man in the Hymn,
and it would be odd if the poet had noticed his ugliness only now. This
is also the objection to Ridgeway’s (1888, 110) )* ‘toothless’
(comparing with ): why would the poet observe this physi-
cal characteristic of the Old Man just now? And why does he not make
anything of it in the Old Man’s ensuing speech to Apollo?
Furthermore, @) can be used as a term of abuse in Comedy
(also of the Furies at A. Eu. 644), and, as Càssola ad loc. rightly points
out, it does not refer to someone’s physical appearance, but to his char-
acter (cf. Ar. V. 4, Lys. 476, Cratin. 25, S. fr. 905.2). Therefore Càssola
takes @) as an attribute of and renders “il vecchio
briccone” (the old rascal), assuming that the poet thought the Old Man
was going to betray Hermes. But why would the poet characterize the
Old Man in such a way, especially since he is forgotten in the remainder
of the narrative, and Hermes is neither testing nor punishing him as he
does in the story of Battus?11
Several emendations have been proposed for @), most of
which are paleographically implausible. By far the best is that offered
by Courtney (2008), who adopts Barnes’ and agrees with pre-
vious editors that the corruption must lie in @); this would orig-
inally have been a word designating the tool/instrument with which the
Old Man was building his fence. Courtney thus proposes ()) ‘with
a spade,’ the idea being that the Old Man was digging up rocks from the
11 As a curiosum it may be mentioned that Voss, who had proposed taking @) with
, met with Hermann’s ironic and scathing rebuke; cf. Hermann, p. cxxi: “conques-
tus est enim nuper Io. Henr. Vossius quod quidam, quae in epistolis mythologicis scripsisset,
nescire se simularent, et paene pro non scriptis habere. Id ne mihi nunc quoque vitio ver-
tatur, profiteor, me legisse … quum in eo hymno « fascias, 7 aras, φ7
mactationem, ")1 aliquem consilio adiuvare, @) trucem aspectu inter-
pretatur; legisse etiam alia huiusmodi, ad quae medicum eius attendere oportet.”
382 Commentary
ground to use them in building his vineyard’s fence (cf. Od. 24.223–25
$))# Ν | ¹!« )<« $))
« 3 Q « | c ) /()).
()) is attested only in Hesychius, s.v. 7) 2448
« ! ) ; cf. CGlL II 145.15 pene 7). ( 7) is per-
haps attested also in Hsch. 4106 · @ $ ! ),
for which Alberti conjectured $ μ« (); Latte prints $ μ«
/); see also Schmidt’s editio maior.) Now, ! ) , which
must derive from ! )) (‘hoe’), does not occur elsewhere besides the
gloss in Hesychius. The word closest to ! ) is !) , at-
tested at Poll. 7.22 λ !) ), χ ¹ ! ) ,
but this is mentioned in the context of bread-making. However, given
that the Old Man is addressed by Apollo as " * at 190, it seems
likelier that he was not digging up stones, but was either trimming the
brumble bushes which formed the hedge of his vineyard or removing
the brumble bushes that had grown between the plants of which the
hedge consisted. Besides, ‘building a fence with a spade’ is far too con-
densed an expression.
We may further single out Hermann’s /)* (‘sluggish, slow-
moving, dull’, paleographically close to @)): but from what we
gather in the poem, the Old Man seems to be rather energetic. Stahl’s
@ ) is problematic: the word is attested only as a proper name
(the king of Sicily whose daughters killed Minos); the only authority
for its use as anything but a proper name is Hsch. 4795 @ )·
)*. λ ρ« $) 1«.12 It is hard to imagine how Schmitt’s
1) (‘bent’), proposed also by Stoll (1859, 320), would be cor-
rupted into the more unusual @). McDaniel (1900, 81–82) of-
fered ! @)« (‘pointed stakes’ or ‘thorns’, suggesting that the Old
Man is building a fence with thorny branches): but this sense would not
be yielded with either or . Hermann also proposed
*/), which may mean ‘wall’ or ‘stones’; cf. Phot. Lex. s.v. (II 230
Naber) π ) ! 1) ¹!, π ) (( «
/ « and EM p. 770.2–5. The word is attested in later authors:
Thphr. CP 3.6.5, Nic. Th. 143 (where it means pebbles or dry stones; cf.
Hsch. 1530), and Lycophr. 1064. Besides, */) is palaeographi-
cally far from @).
)
12 In the critical apparatus of Schmidt’s edition we read the following: )*] "! = "-
!)« R?
Lines 187–188, 189–200 383
Among the more radical interventions we might cite Groddeck

(1786, 87–88), who proposed audacius paulo i , and
construed i ( ) Q « $)
«, ξ<
², i.e. “invenit senem prope vineae septum, aquae ad viam, septo
praetentam, inclinandae intentum.” Besides the hiatus that this emen-
dation causes and the misconstruction of Q « $)
«, it also conflicts
with 190 " *, which would be out of place if the Old Man were
carrying water. Ilgen (1796, 417–18) proposed ) i ,
paraphrasing “ibi invenit senem illum, fossam, quae sepes esset vineae,
prope viam munientem.” But )o« does not mean fossa: Hesy-
chius, our source for the word, glosses ) ( 641) )@,
" , )" (at 649 )« is glossed «, )9 (!7«).
In addition, this too would conflict with " *. Finally, Schneide-
win (1848, 676) suggested )« Ρ# (sc. Apollo) i ), i.e.
‘Apollo found the Old Man gathering branches’, presumably to build his
fence; but again, the objection here would be that this is paleographically
removed from the transmitted reading and it assumes that a commoner
word ( )«) was corrupted into a less common one ( @)).
We cannot obtain satisfactory sense neither by keeping the trans-
mitted text nor through the suggested emendations for @). Per-
haps the solution lies in an idea advanced by Matthiae (252–53), who,
comparing Pl. Lg. 681a ( λ λ « « « K «
@«, "*)« ¹!@« « / 1-
! ( Q ), proposed that a scribe might
have written beside Q « $)
« the words μ« @) or
λ @) (‘against wild animals’) which was then metrically re-
phrased, perhaps as @)# 3φ# (i ), was introduced into the text,
and was subsequently corrupted into @) i .
189–200 Apollo’s address to the Old Man

Apollo’s speech consists of a mock-dignified address to the Old Man,
followed by a narrative section organized in a chiastic structure:
191–93a = a (cows), 193b–95a = b (dogs and bull), 195b–96 = b’ (dogs
and bull), 197–98 = a’ (cows), and concludes with a request for in-
formation. There are instances of anaphora (!« … !« 192, b
… Ρ 196) and alliteration ( ) )«, $μ )
198, )«, F R« 199).
384 Commentary
In ps.-Apollodorus’ version of the story (3.10 = III 113) Apollo in-

terrogates the inhabitants of Pylos who reveal to him that a boy was
driving the cattle away, but they do not know where he led them because
of the absence of footprints. The Hymn poet presents a helpless Apollo
asking the Old Man for help (instead of interrogating him). And the
god will be later unable to discover his cattle even though there are foot-
prints. Apollo’s state of helplessness is made particularly clear in vv.
191–96: his narrative is jerky and repetitive, and some information is
added in enjambment as an afterthought (e.g. < $)(« 193, «
194, !! « 195); and at 196 Apollo expressly acknowledges his sur-
prise (χ κ λ ).
189 μ « φ: elsewhere this speech introduction for-

mula runs μ * « ! (cf. Il. 5.276, 6.122, 6.517, 7.23,
10.36, 11.605, 20.177 = 21.149, 22.249, 24.634, [Hes.] Sc. 349, Theoc.
22.53). The poet could have used Il. 7.23 μ * « !
Ν< :μ« ¹μ« #A*)) (with * instead of 7) or he might have
combined μ * « ! with :μ« λ [(« ¹*«, a
clausula confined to h.Apol. 545, h.Herm. 243, 321, and [Hes.] Sc. 202.
But this speech introduction formula is used also at 89 μ * «
!φ( M(« « ¹*«, when Hermes addresses the Old
Man. The poet has coined a new formula to set up a parallelism be-
tween the encounter of the two divine brothers with the Old Man. What
differentiates 89 from 189 is the god’s matronymic: the poet appears to
participate in his characters’ strategy to address each other by means of
periphrases containing a matronymic.
Finally, both gods address the Old Man by means of τ . This,
on the one hand, is to be expected, given the addressee’s age, but it also
gives us another point of comparison: whereas Hermes mocks the Old
Man, Apollo addresses him with what appears to be a dignified address
(τ #O/(! " *); is he perhaps attempting to win the
Old Man’s sympathy?
] « & « ¹«: cf. 176.
190 τ ! : cf. 90.

#O!5 ) … «: cf. 88 #O/(!μ )/(.
*< ‘bramble-cutter’ occurs nowhere else in extant litera-
ture; it is only listed in EG " 63 and EM p. 191.56–57 without any overt
Lines 189–192 385
reference to the Hymn. Critics have assumed that the Old Man was
building up the hedge of his vineyard by cutting brambles (thus al-
ready Matthiae 254). He might be removing bramble bushes that have
grown among the trees and bushes that form the hedge; or the hedge
might consist of bramble bushes, which the Old Man simply wants to
trim.
An alternative rendering would be ‘berry-picker’ (from "); cf.
Clay Politics 115–16, for whom the Old Man’s activity is a sign of the
brutish state of humankind before the advent of Hermes. Such a ren-
dering would accord well with the fact that is used of plucking
leaves, flowers, or fruits (cf. West on Hes. Th. 31 and Sappho’s -
) *(« [fr. 105a.2]) and not of mowing bushes. But it would con-
flict with what the poet has just said about the Old Man’s activity in his
vineyard ( ξ< ² Q « $)
«, if is correct).
191 < « … @ «: cf. 216, 262 ("« $ 1)« &7«

# ¹ «), 370, and above, p. 46.
192 « … «: for the anaphora, cf. Call. Dian. 14 !«
«, !« 3 « $ «, Lyr. adesp. fr. 9.2 (p. 168 CA)
! , ! ) 3# 3/![], Theoc. 15.6 ) »
(«, ) » /)φ* Ν «, V. Aen. 6.787 omnis caelico-
las, omnis super alta tenentis, and Fehling (1969, 200–202).
"«: cf. 72, 75, 193.
J«: cf. Q) « "« (h. Herm. 116, 567; Il. 9.466,
18.524, 21.448, 23.166, Od. 1.92, 4.320, 9.46, 11.289, 12.136, 24.66, Hes.
Op. 795, [Hes.] fr. 198.11, suppl.), of which !! ') « may be
an interpretation; cf. Herter (1983, 184–85, 187).
Q)< was sometimes understood as ‘black’ in antiquity; cf. Od.
1.92 (I 65 g–k Pontani): g. ')
3/«. h. ν )«·
') μ ) μ ). Ρ λ ') @ 1 (
κ )*φ), E Od. 4.320 (II 272 Pontani), Hsch. ') «
2091, and Leaf on Il. 9.466.
At 220 the same cattle are said to be S * , but such discrep-
ancy is not unparalleled; cf. the Cattle of the Sun at Od. 12.348 ("
S ), as opposed to 12.136 and 12.355 (Q) «). Richter
(1968, 47–48) considers ') « and S merely “poetisch
erhöhende epitheta ornantia.” See further Fernández-Delgado (1998).
386 Commentary
193 ² ξ « &< « $# Ν% : explains why Hermes

stole only female animals. On "*! !, see 27n. Apollo appears to be
following here the advice given in some technical treatises, namely to
keep the male animals apart from the female except for certain periods
of time; cf. 409–14n.
194 « is in the enjambed position, but does not add a particu-
larly important piece of information: the bull’s colour would have been
useful to note, perhaps as a way of identifying the animal, if Hermes
had stolen it as well; but given that it was left behind, this information is
of no moment.
« is used only here of a living animal in archaic epic; else-
where it refers to serpents ( «) depicted on a cuirass (Il. 11.26,
39) or a shield ([Hes.] Sc. 167). West on Hes. Op. 527 (
$ ) observes that « is in early epic an elevated synonym of
)«. Cf. Dürbeck (1977, 139–45).
5 ‘fierce’ is normally used of lions in early epic (cf. h.Herm.
569, Od. 11.611, Hes. Th. 321, [Hes.] Sc. 177, Aphr. 70, h.Hom. 14.4. At
[Theoc.] 25.225 we read of the Nemean Lion’s / μ *!).
We may be justified in detecting some irony here, since the dogs do not
act fiercely against the cattle-thief, who actually happens to be an
enemy of theirs (cf. /(«).
Subsequently / *« denotes a characteristic of the eyes of both
humans and animals (‘flashing’ or ‘grey-blue,’ sometimes with a phy-
siognomonic function); Latacz (1966, 38–42) explains it as “gieräugig,
gierig blickend,” ‘with a greedy look’); cf. Arist. GA 779a32, 35, Phgn.
812b5, LXX Ge. 49.12 (of the eyes of a drunk person), Ael. NA 14.16,
Orib. Coll.Med. 25.1.13, AP 5.153.3–4 (modifying ! of a )-
μ "), Asclepiades; see Sens [2011] 17–18), Philostr. VS 2.7
[= p. 59.29–31 Kayser] (/ 7 $ S -
! /( ²
« _«), Her. 35.2 (= p. 49 de Lannoy)
")*« / « « Sφ)« Kμ κ * (, s ¹
)« $")9
²
!), Im. 1.11.4, Plu. 934c (where it is
linked with 7« and ) «), Opp. C. 4.162 ( *«
/ ! K# Sφ)! | * ). In later Greek its use is
extended to abstractions or heavenly bodies.
Lines 193–198 387
195 ' φ-« ²φ «: ²φ% (and the cognate ²φ ) is
used of animals elsewhere only at Il. 22.263 (Cξ )1 λ Ν «
²*φ μ 3/!) and Od. 9.456 (Polyphemus addressing his
ram: κ ²φ « φ7« ). Elsewhere, it is used of
gods (Hes. Th. 60, h.Dem. 434, h.Herm. 391) or humans, and it sometimes
has political connotations; cf. Od. 6.183, Thgn. 81, Pi. O. 7.6 (²*φ «
C»«), Hdt. 7.229.1, 9.2.2, X. HG 7.5.7, Arist. Ath.Pol. 14.3 etc.
Apollo compares his dogs to ‘like-minded men,’ but in epic 1
(and cognates) can be a curse directed at men or even gods; see the
examples in Faust (1970, 24–27, 30).
0φ" : this form recurs at A.R. 1.1325*, Tryph. 175, Man.
6.198*; see Chantraine, GH I 401–402 (§193) for similar aorist forms
(3 , 3φ,
/, ).
196 χ κ λ " : cf. Il. 18.549 μ κ λ

, the poet’s comment on Hephaestus’ artistry in forging
Achilles’ shield; cf. 49n. and 52n.
For the intensifying , see LSJ, s.v. E II 1–2, Chantraine, GH II
125–26 (§ 181).
197 0< : Epic also uses 3"(!, always at verse-end.

: A.R. 1.924–25 ξ ) |
Υ
may be an imitation of this clausula (cf. at A.R. 1.581,
at Call. Ep. 20.2 Pf.). Schulze QE 136, noting that the quan-
tity of 1 in the present and imperfect forms is always short, con-
siders the long of either as lengthening metri gratia
or an indication of the Hymn’s late date. But cf. ()
at Od. 1.276 and 11.414.
This phrase for the setting of the sun may be the poet’s coinage;
epic has Ϊ ’ )) 1 (e.g. Il. 1.592, 18.210, 19.207) and
« ) 1 (e.g. Il. 1.601, 19.162, 24.713, Od. 3.138, 17.570,
Hes. Th. 596; h.Herm. 206); see van Nortwick (1975, 41–42).
198 !« is nowhere else in epic used of *« (pasture); it is com-
monly found with sleep, food or drink, song, and more rarely with
other concepts () *« describing sleep: e.g. Il. 10.4 C … | 8«
3/ ) *«, cf. 8n.; food or drink: e.g. Il. 11.89, Od. 4.88, 12.306,
14.194, 20.69).
388 Commentary
Notice the alliteration in ) )«, $μ ) and

the rhyming effect at ) . The effect is similar to Il.
18.576 μ ), μ
; see Ed-
wards ad loc.
199 + is a unique phrase to conclude a request for in-

formation in epic; cf. the similar Il. 24.379 ($))# Ν * ξ λ
$ « )<), Od. 4.379 = 4.468 ($)) !1 , λ
F!!), 19.162 ($)) λ —« μ «).
!ξ ! « is found only at Il. 17.561 (Menelaus address-
ing Phoenix as d< Ν ξ )«), but there the two in-
terlocutors are familiar with each other. Elsewhere in epic ! «
is found with (1«: Il. 3.386 (Aphrodite disguises as an old woman),
Od. 22.395 (Eurycleia), h.Dem. 101, 113 (Demeter disguised as an old
woman).
; 2%«: this clausula is found elsewhere in epic only at Od.
3.92–94 = 4.322–24 (Κ ! 1# ¹ , F #
)9 (! | ) μ R) !, F R« | Sφ)-
! !, ν Ν)) Ν !«; Telemachus asks Nestor and
Menelaus for news regarding his father) and h.Dem. 71–72 (( «
3! φ) « F R« | Ρ« « *!φ )"Ω
$ ! $ 9 (; Demeter entreats Helios for information regarding
Persephone); in both cases F R« is preceded by a form of -
! (instead of that the Hermes poet uses).
200 $ : Apollo still does not know who the thief is nor does he ima-
gine that it is an infant; he only realizes the thief’s identity at 213–14
when he receives a bird-omen, but then he obtains only partial know-
ledge; cf. 405 (
!).
#
On , see 44n.
)# &λ < : ‘in charge of these cows’; cf. Od. 20.209, 20.221;
LSJ, s.v. B III 6, Schwyzer II 467.
" occurs in the same sedes with variations,
but refers to a sea-journey (Il. 1.483; Od. 2.213, [2.429]; [Orph.] A. 1346;
Q.S. 6.105). Cf. Il. 7.285 = 3.14 ≈ 23.364 () ‘traversing the plain.’
Lines 198–202 389
201–211 The Old Man’s reply

The formerly speechless Old Man has now become quite talkative.
His reply to Apollo consists of a short address (τ φ)«), followed
by a gnomic and generalizing section (202–205), enclosed in a mini-ring
(cf. 202 $ ) ~ 205 /)*), and a description of his activity on
the vineyard on the previous day (206–207); the actual answer to Apol-
lo’s question does not come until v. 208. All this calls to mind the re-
marks in Arist. Rh. 1415b22–24 « ν "))! ν φ*"«
$)1 « « … λ ¹ ( μ μ » 3/«
ν «· / ") " ν ) , μ
λ ¹ ) C @ )! $)) 1 )) , λ
&.
Old people are expected to make extensive use of proverbs and
gnomai in literature (especially in tragedy), but the Old Man’s use
of proverbial wisdom here may also be attributed to Hermes’ “instruc-
tion”; cf. Clay Politics 131 and Tzifopoulos (2000, 156–57): In his ad-
dress to the Old Man Hermes had himself used proverbial phraseology.
In addition to the proverbial background, the Old Man’s reply has also
a (pseudo-)philosophic ring: lines 202–203 seem to suggest that it is dif-
ficult to communicate verbally the information one receives through
the senses, while 205 remarks on the impossibility of attaining complete
knowledge; cf. Protag. fr. 4 D.-K.
In the final part of his reply the Old Man mentions that a boy was
walking the cattle backwards, but does not say anything about Hermes’
address to him or his strange sandals. It is only at 213–14 that Apollo
realizes the identity of the thief (through the bird-omen). And curi-
ously, it does not occur to the Old Man that the infant he had seen
might have been a god.
On the allusion to the Old Man’s speech in [Theoc.] 25, see above
p. 119–120.
202 τ φ « is a form of address found in epic when an older person

speaks to someone younger; cf. Od. 3.375 (Nestor to Telemachus),
17.17 (Odysseus to Telemachus), [Hes.] Sc. 95 (Heracles to Iolaus).
It also occurs often in tragedy, though not necessarily between an older
speaker and a younger addressee (cf. A. fr. 47a.807, S. OC 1700, E.
Andr. 510, 530, 842, 1205, Supp. 277, Tr. 267, 1081, IT 830, Rh. 367).
390 Commentary
Scott (1903, 194), examining the “ethos” of τ in Homer and Hesiod,

observed that the interjection adds a familiar (or angry, coarse, impa-
tient) tone to the speech and that the “favorite word with τ is φ)” in
the Il. and the Od. But as Dickey (1996, 199–206) shows, it is impossible
to generalize on the meaning of τ with the vocative; see also Bulloch on
Call. Lav.Pall. 81 (with n. 3).
The use of τ φ)« here is in keeping with the age difference be-
tween the two speakers and brings to the fore the fact that Apollo’s di-
vinity has not been recognized. For this form of address, see West
(1967, 139–44).
202–203 $! ξ Ρ# >φ" ) ; | ! :

; () is preferrable to F (M) or any of the proposed emen-
dations (Barnes’ F « or Ernesti’s F). The Old Man utters a gen-
eralizing statement, and in such statements the indefinite « may be
omitted; cf. Il. 13.287 (with Janko’s n.), Hes. Th. 741, Op. 12 (with
West’s n.), 291, X. Smp. 1.8, Theoc. 17.41; Schwyzer II 216 ()) and
621–22 (Zusatz 2); Chantraine, GH II 8 (§ 10).
For the difficulty of recounting everything, cf. Od. 7.241–42
($ ), "!), ( « $ ! | 7# ))
*! λ OC «), 19.221–22 (τ 1, $ ) *!!
/ * $φλ« * | ). Here $ ) does not refer only
to the difficulties caused by the limited powers of man to recount
what he has learned (as at Od. 7.241–42 or in Il. 2.485–86), but casts
doubt on the very possibility of learning (cf. /)μ 7 *
' !).
203–205 ‘For many passers-by go on their way, of whom some frequent

(sc. the road) pursuing many evils, but others (pursuing) very noble in-
tentions.’ For the idea of meeting travelers with good or bad intentions,
cf. Il. 24.374–76 ($))# 3 « λ K !/ / | Ρ«
*# x ²* $")
! | F!), Od. 13.228–30 (τ φ)#,
! / ) # λ /@ ), | / λ 7 )

*) $")7!«, | $)) ! ξ , ! # ); in both
examples a human addresses a god in disguise.
203 ²μ ²): cf. 200 7!! ).

Homer uses the genitive with 7!!: cf. Il. 24.264, Od. 3.476, 15.47,
Lines 202–206 391
15.219, all of which convey a sense of urgency (b 7!! ²

vel sim., ‘to get on our way’). The Old Man’s generalizing comment
evokes this sense of urgency as he describes what seems to be a busy
road frequented by sundry travellers.
The poet could have used the metrically equivalent !/!; cf.
Od. 17.204 (!/« ²μ )*!!), 23.136 ($# ²μ
!/); and further Pi. N. 1.25 ( C« ²« !/) and
Bacch. 10.35–38 (1 | # Ν))[« $))] ), | Ϊ[
!/] $ @ *<« | 1<). The accusative with 7!!
is found at A.R. 1.1267–68 (of a bull) 7!! # ²μ Ν))#
Ν!« | Ν)) # ¹!«.
Notice the figura etymologica in ²* … ².
204 3 3 «: this scansion of « (instead of -

˘ «) is met in early epic only at Il. 2.818 (*« /9
(!), “an
unparalleled and unsatisfactory half-verse” as Kirk remarks, and 13.197
(* 1 « $)
«), where the genitive is also unparalleled.
@« etc. is found either absolutely or accompanied by an infinitive
(= ‘eager to…’). Subsequently, - occurs at Pi. O. 1.89 (with
$ «), Stesich. S105b.9, A.R. 2.1198, 4.1588, [Theoc]. 25.105 etc. For
the semantic development of @«/ (‘wait [insistently] so that
I do something’ > ‘dare to do’ or ‘be eager to do’), see Kastner (1991,
69–74). Here the participle should be taken with both and !).
205 φ - () is preferable to 7!!! (M) which was in-

fluenced by 200 and 203, perhaps as an early attempt to supply a verb
for !).
5μ ξ & Z (sc. ²(); ‘it is difficult to
get to know each (passer-by),’ i.e. his intentions.
takes a per-
sonal object also at 565 ( λ " μ Ν («) where it means
‘instruct’ (see n. ad loc.)
206 N &« ' occurs several times in

Homer, almost always followed by reference to feasting in the next
verse; cf. Il. 1.601 [= Od. 19.424], 19.162; Od. 9.161 = 9.556 = 10.183 =
10.476 = 12.29. The only other instances in which this formula is not
followed by a form of ! are Il. 24.713 (lamenting for Hector)
and Hes. Th. 596 (the men like bees working and producing wax).
392 Commentary
207 0 : see 90n.

λ ! μ $%« + : this clausula is used with vari-
ations in the preposition elsewhere only at Od. 1.193 and 11.193.
here means ‘round about in’ the field; cf. LSJ, s.v. C I 4. When
Hermes met the Old Man, he remarked on his hoeing the vines (90–91).
! « (possibly related to *) = ‘swelling’, ‘hill’, hence the sun-
niest and most fertile part of a field; cf. D Il. 9.534 (van Thiel) )

) λ ) / )
«
«.
208–212 ‘It seemed to me – I don’t know for sure – that I saw a boy.
Whoever the boy was, who followed with the well-horned cows, (he
was) an infant, was holding a staff, was walking to and fro, and was
driving the cattle backwards, with their heads facing him.’
208 The construction of this verse is odd; !φξ« # C ρ is best taken
parenthetically, and we should punctuate after
! with van Her-
werden (1876, 72). Like the Old Man’s overall answer, so too the syntax
of this verse is out of focus; this jagged syntax may reflect his confusion
and inability to put in coherent words what he had seen and heard.
0 8 does not occur in Homer or Hesiod; Od. 10.415 and 20.93
have * (!.
φ is an elevated form of address not found elsewhere in the
Homeric Hymns, except here and at 533. Cf. Il. 6.123 (Diomedes to
Glaucus whom he asks whether he is a god), 15.247 (φ ! ,
Hector to Apollo), 24.387 (Priam to Hermes); at Od. 1.405 (Polybus to
Telemachus) it might be ironic, while at 9.269 (Odysseus to Polyphe-
mus) it aims at winning the Cyclops’ favour. It is found in tragedy as
an attribute of kings: A. Th. 39 (φ ! K Ν<), S. OT 1149
(τ φ ! !).
Adverbial φ« is not found in archaic or later epic, but it occurs
from Pindar on; Homer employs !φ in this meaning; cf. Il. 2.192 (C
!φ# ρ!), 2.252, 5.183, 7.226, for the idea cf. Pi. O. 13.45–46
³« !φξ« | C r ( ) » 5»φ $ *.
: Radermacher preferred M’s 7!«, detecting an anacolu-
thon with 3<; the same is printed by Humbert.
209 Ρ« « ² )«: (sc. _); cf. 277, Od. 5.445, h.Dem. 119 with Richard-
son’s n., and Chantraine, GH II 242 (§ 355).
Lines 207–210 393
Ϊ < … >: cowherds are said to follow the cattle also
at Il. 18.524–25, 18.577, Hes. Op. 406, h.Aphr. 78 (with Faulkner’s n.);
similarly the shepherd follows his flocks at S. OT 1125–26.
&9 is the reading of M (
!) and [ (adopted by
Radermacher, AHS, and West) and is preferrable to !
(adopted by Càssola). 1 « does not recur in archaic poetry,
but is found in A. Supp. 300 (Κ )& ZL« 3 C )
"U;), at Oppian. Hal. 2.516 (7!! «) and Nonn. D. 15.255
( ) 9 (). The only parallel in archaic epic is suggested
by S * « which is a three-termination adjective (cf. "
S at Il. 8.231, 18.573, Od. 12.348, h.Herm 220;
S at Il. 18.3, 19.344), and 1 « may have con-
formed to this pattern.
For the formation of compounds in - (originally meaning
‘headgear’), see Nussbaum (1986, II 220–35).
210 «: see 152n.

G< often in archaic epic designates the staff of a god (cf. Il.
24.343≈Od. 24.2, Hermes’ caduceus; Od. 10.238, 10.293, 10.319, 10.389,
Circe’s wand; 13.429, 16.172, 16.456, Athena’s golden wand with which
she transforms Odysseus into an old man; cf. Pi. O. 9.33–34, Hades’
staff). But at Il. 12.297 it is a synonym of Wφ7 (‘wire’) and at Od.
12.251 it is a fishing rod. The staff Hermes holds here, to be distin-
guished from the )1 )) W" he receives from
Apollo at 529, is in all likelihood the shepherd’s crook, the ) 5;
cf. Il. 23.845, A.R. 2.33, 4.974, Luc. DJud. 5 (quoted at 214n. on
<! # $ ).
& φ ‘turning in different directions,’ though cf. Hsch.
s.v. 5261 who also glosses !/ « and «. This adverb is found
in Homer (and authors imitating Homer) in battle-scenes; e.g. Il.
10.483, Od. 24.184 ( #/ ! φ() or Il. 21.20, Od.
22.308 (1 #/1 ! φ(; cf. Nonn. D. 28.204).
A skyphos now located at the Museo Nazionale di Taranto (no.
7030, LIMC, s.v. Hermes no. 246; ca. 500 B.C.) depicts Hermes leading
away Apollo’s cattle, but it is unclear whether the artist meant us to
understand that the cattle were walking backwards; Hermes, at any
rate, is depicted as walking forward, his torso turned towards the cows,
and he is thus facing them.
394 Commentary
Hermes walks from one side of the road to the other (cf. Apollo’s
words in 226 and 357) partly to erase some of the cattle’s footprints and
to confuse Apollo by his sandals’ strange imprints which would thus
point in different directions.
&<@ occurs first here and at 320, and is not found elsewhere in
early epic (but Homer has "( $*« at Il. 13.516); it is then
found at S. El. 1502 ("!), E. Ph. 544, frequently in comedy and
prose; Olson ad Ar. Ach. 393–94 considers it colloquial.
211 Matthiae 256 thought this line to be “allucinantis et balbutientis

oratio” and consequently deleted it. But we have already observed the
Old Man’s peculiar language (208–209). Matthiae also posited a lacuna
at this point, in which Apollo presumably found out that his cattle had
been led to Pylos; Baumeister likewise posited a lacuna and suggested
on the basis of 342 and 354–55 that it was the Old Man who informed
Apollo; but these lines do not prove this thesis. It is only after the bird-
omen of 213–14 that we are told that Apollo rushed towards Pylos. This
implies in the story’s logic that Apollo was informed about his cattle’s
location by the omen.
&8 % # $ !: cf. Il. 17.752 $ S!!, when the
Ajaces repel the Trojan attack.
Hermes does not simply aim at driving the cattle backwards
(<!!), but also at keeping them together and preventing them
from becoming scattered; this is an additional reason for his movement
to and fro (! φ(); cf. Luc. DJud. 5 C/ ² ) »« " …
/* ! ) )1
3/ λ $ κ *! ! ! κ $)(;
# 05 $ :) -: the cattle walked backwards, but
Hermes himself walked normally, thus facing the animals. must
be plural (cf. perhaps Il. 10.259, h.Dem. 12, or #, S. Ant.
291, Sannyr. 3, A.R. 4.1294, and Schwyzer I 2, 583), the result of a
contraction from * [!] and subsequent hyperionism; see Chan-
traine, GH I 231 (§ 102) and Hoekstra (1969, 57). Alternatively, one
might consider ( a collective noun. At 240 ( is certainly sin-
gular.
Hermann emended 05 to 3/ (thus changing the subject: ‘they
had their heads facing him’); but this is not necessary since :) - is re-
flexive. Radermacher took ( to be singular and rendered “rücklings
Lines 210–212 395
schreitend hatte er das Gesicht ihm (dem () entgegengesetzt”; in

other words Hermes walks backwards and his head is turned back-
wards as well! But this seems rather improbable, and it would be odd if
the Old Man mentioned this grotesque way of Hermes’ walking so cur-
sorily.
The dative with $ is not Homeric; the genitive is found instead
(cf. e.g. Il. 1.230, 5.256, 5.569, Od. 5.198 ≈ 16.53, 17.257, 23.165, Hes.
Op. 594). A dative is used at Hes. Th. 631, Pi. N. 1.24–25; A. Ag. 499,
Epich. 32.5, Mosch. 3.48, Opp. C. 3.133 etc.
212–26 Apollo rushes to Pylos

After his exchange with the Old Man, Apollo receives an omen that re-
veals the identity of the thief; he moves on rapidly (cf. 212, 215) towards
Pylos, with a determination that gives us the impression that he knows
exactly where to find his cattle. But his marvelling at Hermes’ footprints
(219–26, the first time that we are explicitly told that he noticed any
footprints, although he must have followed some tracks that led him to
Onchestos in the first place) and his inability to discover the cows even
though he follows their tracks to Pylos prove this wrong. At 215 (cf.
227, 234) Apollo is presented through imposing formulas; this paves the
way for his attempts to appropriate Zeus’s prerogative to punish other
gods and dispense divine honours (256, 291–92). But Apollo’s gran-
diose appearance at 215 is deflated by his inability to discover his cattle
through his mantic skills or (later) to force the infant Hermes to reveal
where he hid the cattle.
212 φ G# ² !% : φ G() recurs as a marker of speech-end at Hes.

Th. 550 (Prometheus), h.Dem. 145 (φ
W ; see Richardson’s n.),
A.R. 3.382 (Aeëtes), 3.693 (Medea). At Od. 4.504 it introduces re-
ported speech within someone else’s speech. Epic uses more commonly
_ W.
² ξ " ²μ : for the accentuation of " , see West
(1998, I XX), s.v. Ν!!. By presenting Apollo increasing his speed, the
poet confirms that he is on the correct route.
" $ '« appears in M and xm for the much commoner
clausula d"« #A*)) (). These may be rhapsodic variants;
cf. 563n. Often, $ 1!« (vel sim.) recurs in this sedes and refers
396 Commentary
to a speech after which the addressee undertakes some action; cf.

Il. 2.16–17, 3.76–77 = 7.54–55, Od. 2.412, 8.272, 17.348 = 551 = 574,
Hes. Th. 665.
213 +% μ # & : pace Baumeister and Gemoll,

+% is a real bird, as ! makes clear, and does not refer
to the Old Man’s cryptic words (Baumeister thus considered
! a humorous reference to the formula 3 *,
while Gemoll took it as a mere epitheton ornans). This bird could be a
raven, traditionally associated with Apollo ([Hes.] fr. 60, Aesop. Fab.
125, 236, 323 Perry, Ov. Met. 2.541–632) and prophecy (Bouché-Le-
clercq I 133; Thompson, Motif-Index B 147.2.1.1, J. 821.1; D’Arcy
Thompson [1895, 92–93]). Receiving information from a bird is a com-
mon folk-tale motif; cf. Hes. loc. cit.; Apul. Met. 5.28; Hopf (1888,
110–27); Thompson, Motif-Index B 291.1, H. 1233.6.3. In [Apollod.]
3.10 [III 114] Apollo discovers the thief’s identity
«
«, but
no further details are given.
) = notice a sign and understand its meaning; cf. Od. 20.367–68
(λ μ Κ | /*, * Κ « K φ1 C#
$)) and Nagy (1990a, esp. 205–206).
« ‘with outstretched wings’ has a special point here
since ornithomantists observed the manner of the birds’ flight, in addi-
tion to their φ, Q and ; cf. Bouché-Leclercq I 135–36,
Dillon (1996), and below 544n. I.Eph. 1678 (= SGDI 1167, LSAM 30A;
6th/5th c. BC) contains instructions on when a bird bodes ill or well on
the basis of the movement of its wings.
! « is combined with *« only here; but cf. Il.
12.237 ! 1!!, h.Dem. 89 1 …,
Alcm. 89.6 φ) 1. Elsewhere, ! « is
found with R « (Od. 5.65, Hes. Th. 525, Op. 212), specific types of
birds ( /): Od. 22.468; : Stesich. S 88 fr. 1 col. ii.20; -
)«: Alc. 345.2; /): Ar. Av. 1411, 1415 etc.), or the moon,
M7(, imagined as winged on account of her journey in the sky
(h.Hom. 32.1).
The original meaning of the first part of compound adjectives with
- was ‘thin’ or ‘long’; e.g. 1)« (e.g. Il. 3.228), )/
(S!*«; e.g. Il. 8.297), 1( « (Ν ; e.g. Il. 14.385), 1)!!
( ; e.g. Od. 5.65), 1φ))« ()(; e.g. Od. 13.102),
Lines 212–216 397
!φ « (e.g. Hes. Th. 364; on the spelling, see Richardson on

h.Dem. 2), 1 / (ρ; Hes. Op. 516). But later a verbal sense was
felt by analogy to adjectives such as !«, !φ))«, or
%)! «, and an extended form was created from the aorist stem
(1![!]); see Knecht (1946, 26–29).
213–214 ‘And immediately he realized that the thief had been the son of
Zeus, son of Cronus.’ Now that he knows the thief’s identity, Apollo im-
mediately hastens to (Triphylian) Pylos and then to Cyllene.
Matthiae 257 considered these verses interpolated because the
omen is passed over so quickly; but the poet had no reason to elaborate
on it since bird-omens are not unusual in poetry.
φ : see 67n.
!!- can mean ‘born’ as in 271, 331 ( ;
also 17n.), Il. 9.456*, Od. 4.112 ≈ 4.144. But it can also be taken to
mean ‘existing’ or ‘being’ as it is here.
μ« ) K % «: with the similar line-ending at 215 the
poet juxtaposes in formal terms the two gods who are about to engage
in a verbal confrontation; cf. also the following n. and v. 239.
215 & %« # ?8 : cf. 212n.

Ν 8 μ« ¹μ« #A% : cf. 243 :μ« λ [(« ¹*« which
could have been used here (droping the movable of -<). The poet
seems interested in juxtaposing the two sons of Zeus on the formulaic
level before they engage in their verbal confrontation. In addition,
this pompous introduction of Apollo contrasts with his ineffective-
ness in locating his cattle and intimidating Hermes into revealing their
whereabouts. This clausula is repeated at 227 when Apollo arrives at
Cyllene.
216 &« P' !" : « is used of (Nestor’s) Pylos at Il. 1.252;
Od. 2.308, 4.599, 4.702, 14.180; of Pytho at Od. 8.80, Hes. Th. 499, [Hes.]
fr. 60.2, h.Hom. 24.2; of Lemnos at Il. 2.722, 21.58, 21.79; of Mt. Ny-
seion at Il. 6.133; and of Lesbos at h.Apol. 37. All these places have
strong ties with particular gods: Pylos with Hades, Pytho with Apollo,
Mt. Nyseion with Dionysus, Lemnos with Hephaestus. At 232 «
is used of Cyllene which was closely associated with Hermes; see 2n.
@ « + « < «: cf. 191. Shipp (1972, 45) argues on the
398 Commentary
basis of the distribution of )« in the Iliad (it is found only in di-
gressions, exc. at 16.488) that it was a comparatively recent compound,
and the ζ- in )« was consequently not felt.
217 Gods are commonly wrapped in mist ( ), which prevents mor-
tals from seeing them; cf. Il. 5.186, 14.350–51, 16.790, 20.150, Hes. Th.
9 with West’s n., Op. 223, and Roeger (1924, 28–38). Apollo may wish to
avoid being slowed down by another encounter with a mortal, now that
he knows where to look for his cattle. In addition, the poet may evoke
the negative connotations of φ9 φ9: in its other occurrence
in early hexameter (Il. 17.551) it is likened to the colour of the rainbow
(cf. also Xenoph. 21 B 32 DK; Dürbeck 1977, 42–47), which in the im-
agination of ancient peoples foretold war and destruction; see Edwards
on Il. 17.551 and Boyer (1959, 20–22). Here it may point to the ensuing
confrontation between the two gods, on which see 254–77n.
« :« \ «: cf. Il. 16.360 (Hector covered by his
shield).
218–219 These verses are omitted from M due to the homoeoarcton be-
tween 218 and 220 (F/).
218 ;5 # + : for F/ vs. F/(, see 76n.

+ ) always takes a personal object in early hexameter (Il.
24.700; Od. 11.572, 11.601). Cf. 213 (*)
Footprints (or feet) function sometimes as a means of recognition;
e.g. Il. 13.71–72 with Janko’s n., Od. 4.149, 19.381, A. Cho. 209, and
Sowa (1984, 247–50); cf. also below, v. 343. Here Apollo notices the
footprints, recognizes those that belong to his cows, but cannot inter-
pret the remaining ones as the following lines show. That Apollo does
not proceed to the Alpheios is surely because the ground leading there
was * (cf. 354).
219 φ reveals Apollo’s bafflement. This interjection almost always

begins a speech (hence is preceded by a speech-introductory formula), ex-
cept at Il. 13.99, 14.49, 17.171, Od. 13.209, h.Herm. 309; cf. LfgrE, s.v. (φ)
*. On the accent in φ *, cf. c accented thus by Aristarchus
to avoid confusion with the noun form τ; see the discussion in Laum
(1928, 302–303); and further Bulloch on Call. Lav.Pall. 89.
Lines 216–221 399
N ! " # >φ" ) ²- is normally uttered by

mortals, sometimes in situations resulting from divine interference (cf.
Il. 15.286, 20.344; Od. 19.36); it is regularly introduced by an address to
one’s *«, and the speaker concludes by resolving to follow a particu-
lar course of action; cf. Il. 20.351–52, 21.60–63, Od. 5.290, and Pelliccia
(1995, 271–73). This does not apply to Apollo, who appears to be in a
continual state of wonder throughout the poem; cf. 196, 407, 414, 455.
220 ;5 : see 76n., 218. The strange footprints that cause Apollo’s
amazement are appropriately placed at the beginning of the line. These
tracks will be the subject of this entire speech, as well as a large part of
Apollo’s speech to Zeus.
< - >" % : see 209n.
221 &« $φ μ - : cf. Od. 11.539, 11.573, 24.13, where $!φ-
)μ« )@ is the meadow in the Underworld. Reece (2007; cf. idem
2009, 261–71) proposes that the formula arose from the misinterpre-
tation and rearticulation of !)μ ) (‘the ash-covered
meadow’), triggered by the association of asphodel with the dead (cf.
Reece [2007, 396–97]; on the various attempts to determine the etymol-
ogy of $!φ*)«, see in particular p. 391–92). Herodian in his P λ
#O!!
« !) « (Lentz III/2, 152) records that $!φ)*«
was also spelled !φ)*« and that some critics preferred the form !-
)* ( κ !μ ). Amigues (2002), who
reviews previous discussions on the plant, argues like Reece for a deri-
vation from !)μ ) and posits a ‘contamination’ of
!)*« (‘covered with ashes’) from !φ)*« (‘asphodel’).
$!φ*)« (proparoxytone), designates in post-Homeric Greek
the plant asphodel. On the debate among ancient grammarians on the
accentuation of the adjective $!φ)«, see Hdn. op.cit. and Eust.
Od. I 433 (p. 1698) who reports the view of Herennius Philo (= proparo-
xytone) and Trypho (fr. 14 Velsen: he argues for ², i.e. using
the same accent for both the plant and the field that contains this
plant). The proparoxytone accentuation is supported by P.Ryl. I 53 fol.
92r (Od. 24.13; 1106 M–P3) which transmits $!φ*); see Probert
(2006, 47).
This formula has been thought to hint at tales in which cows repre-
sent the souls of the dead; see Croon (1952, 67–68 with n. 3) and Davies
400 Commentary
(1988, 279–80 with n. 17); but cf. the remarks in 20–68n. Judging by 72
(the cattle graze )« $ ( !« 1«), « $!φ)μ
) clearly has positive connotations for our poet. The phrase,
unless a formulaic fossil used here without regard for meaning, may
also hint at a realm different from human space, hence supernatural,
where the gods’ cattle were (appropriately) located. The argument of
Brout (2003) that the mallow and the asphodel were linked to the
Golden Age and their consumption allowed exceptional men like Py-
thagoras and Epimenides to approach divine status has no application
in this context.
On !φ*)« from a botanic perspective, see Billerbeck (1972,
92), Polunin (1980, 487) nos. 1590–92 with pl. 55. The asphodel (as-
phodelus aestivus) was used as food and in medicine, cf. Thphr. HP
7.13.3, Dsc. 2.169, Gal. VI 651–52, XI 842, Plin. Nat. 21.108, Wagler
(1896), and Baumann (2007, 47) with images 70–73 observes that sheep
and goats avoid asphodel on account of the needle-like crystals they
contain (cf. Polunin and Huxley [1976, 211] no. 233). It is thus surpris-
ing that Apollo’s cattle were grazing in a meadow of asphodel.
222–224 For the anaphora of Κ, cf. Il. 6.383–84, 6.451–52, 17.20–21,

21.316–17 (three times), 24.156–57 (four times).
While 220–21 referred to the cows’ footprints, 222–24 describe
Hermes’ footprints which Apollo compares to progressively wilder
creatures: human beings, then savage animals (wolves and bears), and
finally Centaurs. In addition, while some of these creatures could be-
long to the audience’s experience (wolves and bears), lions probably did
not (they did not exist in Greece in historical times; cf. Richter [1968,
37–38]), and Centaurs were certainly fantastic/mythological beings.
Apollo’s thought progresses thus from the realistic to the fantastic or
(from our perspective) mythological.
222 < appears first here in archaic hexameter (and at 345 where
it designates the cows’ tracks, here called F/); but it occurs in
Sappho 16.17 (3 * "», = walking, gait of Anactoria) and sub-
sequently at Pi. P. 3.43, A. Cho. 799 (lyr.), S. OC 193 (lyr.), where
it means " (a meaning frequently found in prose), Ichn. 102
(X. – # 3!# · " [] 7 | – ![]· *« «
κ $[ ]
Ν), 118 (quoted on p. 80), E. Andr. 880, El. 954, Tr.
Lines 221–224 401
342; [E.] Rh. 205, Ar. Eq. 77, Ec. 677, Pl. 382 (= speaker’s platform)
etc.
223–226 Cf. Od. 10.212–19, where ) designates the men
transformed into wolves and lions at Circe’s palace (cf. h.Herm. 223).
This might help explain the meaning of *« at 226 (= ‘strange’): The
footprints do not cause Apollo any fear but rather a bafflement and
confusion; cf. Od. 19.568 (μ R ) and the false etymology in
Eust. ad Od. p. 1878 (II 219): μ ξ R ν μ ! * … ν
μ @( μ ρ« χ« () λ μ F.
223 For the collocation of bears and lions, cf. Od. 11.611; for wolves
and lions, cf. Od. 10.212, 10.218, 10.433 (!«, )1 «, )«), h.Hom.
14.4; for wolves, bears, and lions, cf. h.Aphr. 70–71 with Faulkner’s n.
The poet thus places standard combinations of animals in a sequence
leading from humans and common creatures to an imaginary one.
224 ' '5 «: in the earliest representations the Cen-

taurs, who are almost always long-haired and bearded, look like humans
with two equine hind legs added. But from the second half of the 7th c.
BC on they are depicted as horses with a human torso; cf. the terracotta
statuette from Lefkandi (Eretria museum, no number available; late
10th c. BC), the bronze statuette depicting a man and a centaur (Metro-
politan Museum of Art 17.190.2072; mid-8th c. BC), or the Etruscan
sculpture of a centaur from Vulci (Museo nazionale di Villa Giulia,
no number available; ca. 550 BC); further NP VI 413–15 and Schiffler
(1976). Apollo’s words do not reveal which type of Centaur is meant; on
the basis of the Hymn’s date, it is likely that it is the second type.
'5 « occurs first here and at h.Hom. 7.46 (of a bear); sub-
sequently it is found at S. Ant. 350–51 (a horse), Ar. Ra. 822 (with
/, in a mock-epic hexameter passage preceding the agon between
Aeschylus and Euripides),13 [Theoc]. 25.272 (with "1 ! | ( *« =
the Nemean lion), Opp. C. 1.183 (of a horse). The epithet is not merely
13 Dover ad loc. wrongly says that at h.Herm. 224 )!/7 [sic] refers to a bull. Some ear-
lier editions printed Κ 1 , but this has no authority; besides, Apollo already
knows that the bull was left in the field; cf. 195–96.
402 Commentary
ornamental but points to the Centaurs’ wild and bestial nature, for
whom Thgn. 542 uses %φ«.
0 ρ (‘nor do I suppose them to be’) is preferable to 3!
² (= D p): according to Càssola 601, L and P preserve readings
that appear both in M and in some branches of and must have been
present in the archetype. The corruption is reflected at Batr. 170b (re-
cension l; see Glei [1984] 37–39, 57–59) λ 1« K1 -
)1/ _! ²: this suggests that its poet might have had a form
of 224 with the clausula 3! ² in mind, possibly a performative,
rhapsodic variant.
225 Ρ« «: see 209n.

) % <<) »: % are Hermes’ monstruously large
footprints (cf. 342 and 349) produced by the sandals he fabricated;
cf. 80 Νφ !# # $*( … 3 , which refers to the san-
dals themselves but can equally well be applied to the tracks they pro-
duce.
226 This verse is characterized by parallelism and strong repetition; see

Fehling (1969, 322). It will be remembered that Hermes had been walk-
ing ! φ(; hence Apollo saw one kind of footprints on the one
side of the road, i.e. the cows’ tracks, which were strange because they led
back to the asphodel meadow; but on the other side of the road there was
a different kind of tracks, even stranger, caused by Hermes’ wondrous
sandals and his walking to and fro.
+ : see 223–226 n.
227–53 Apollo rushes to Mt. Cyllene

and enters Hermes’ cave
Apollo finally arrives at Cyllene and finds Hermes who pretends to be
sleeping. After vainly searching in Maia’s cave, he demands that
Hermes reveal where his animals are hidden. Hermes denies any
knowledge of the cows’ whereabouts, and a confrontation between the
two gods ensues, in which Apollo attempts to convince Hermes by
using violence. Finally, at Hermes’ suggestion, they go to Olympus
where the dispute will be settled by Zeus. We may be reminded of the
Lines 224–226, 227–253 403
way in which Heracles seeks to recover his stolen cattle from Cacus’
cave; but whereas in the Heracles – Cacus story the matter is resolved
through might and violence, in h.Herm. we have comedy, as the affair is
adapted to Hermes’ jovial nature; cf. Herter (1976, 213), Davies (2006,
199–200).
The appearance of Maia’s dwelling changes again: now it resembles
a locus amoenus (on this literary topos, see Haß [1998, esp. 11–26,
38–45]). Shelmerdine (1986, 55–57) rightly suggests that the poet
alludes to the description of Calypso’s cave at Od. 5.55–77. The similar-
ities are: (i) the abundant vegetation (228; cf. Od. 5.63–64 and 68–69);
(ii) consequently, the deep shade (229); (iii) the pleasant fragrance that
emanates from the cave’s surroundings (231–2; cf. already 65 C«;
cf. Od. 5.59–61); (iv) the animals found near the cave (232; cf. Od.
5.65–67). To her list of correspondences we may add 154 *« ~
Od. 5.97 *. We miss, however, a reference to water (cf. Od.
5.70–71), and there is no indication that Apollo admires the surround-
ings (Od. 5.75–76). In fact the Hymn poet has condensed the Odyssean
description, as he is speeding up the pace of his narrative (cf. the refer-
ences to Apollo’s hastening at 212, 215, 227, 233). The poet may also be
playing with audience expectations: given the allusion to Odyssey 5 the
audience may expect a conversation between Apollo and the nymph; in-
stead she is ignored (despite 243–44; contrast Od. 5.58, 61–62), and
Apollo rushes to meet the culprit.
The narrative in h.Herm. follows a straight line: Apollo arrives at
Cyllene, we learn about the cave’s surroundings, then Apollo enters
the cave, searches for his cattle, and addresses Hermes. Contrast the
Odyssean narrative, in which Hermes leaves Olympus and arrives at Ca-
lypso’s cave (5.57–58). He enters the cave (5.58–59: κ # 3
!. | ξ # !/ *φ ), but then we are trans-
ported outside of the cave and we discover its surroundings (5.59–75);
thereafter we are told that Hermes entered the cave (5.76–77); cf. Elliger
(1975, 128–29).
In addition, Maia’s cave is implicitly compared to a temple: cf. 233
) C*, 247 $1«, 251 ¹ λ * and
already 148 Ν … (*. By presenting Maia’s cave in these
terms, the poet reverses Hermes’ threat to break into Apollo’s temple
(178–81): it is Apollo who breaks into his ‘temple.’ On the changing pres-
entation of the cave, see Herter (1981, 191–94) and Vergados (2011b).
404 Commentary
Finally, van Nortwick (1980) points out that in this section the poet
is experimenting with imagery belonging to a general web of ideas as-
sociated with trickery and seduction: 229–30 and 248 ($" !(), 231
(S7), 237 (7«), 247 (φ7), 249 (/ !*« and Ν «). The
confluence of these terms occurs especially at Il. 14.166–86 and h.Aphr.
58–67; cf. further Od. 10.222, 230, 355, 357, 369. In Iliad 14 and h.Aphr.
this element of seduction is present, but not in h.Herm. Van Nortwick
offers two explanations for this absence: the poet either wishes to pre-
sent Maia as an alluring nymph who might threaten Apollo’s purposes
or he wants to link Hermes’ metis, with which he copes with Apollo’s
threats, with the seductive powers of women. If we accept the first
explanation, Apollo would initially emerge as a strong character who
is able to resist Maia’s alluring powers, only to be soon defeated by
his younger brother’s tricks. The second explanation offered by van
Nortwick would accord with the tendency in archaic thought to link
metis with the female (cf. Holmberg [1990]). At any rate, the absence of
a seduction scene may be another instance of the poet’s frustrating
audience expectations.
227 ?8 Ν 8 μ« ¹μ« #A% : cf. 215n.; these two verses frame

Apollo’s visit to Pylos and his expression of bafflement (219–26); 215 is
preceded by his observation of a bird-omen, 227 by his observation of
Hermes’ (divine, cf. 343) footprints.
228 K « # $φ 2 «

9 : cf. 70 P («
$φ R ! * (Hermes arrives at Pieria to steal Apol-
lo’s cattle). The poet again juxtaposes the two gods as their conflict ap-
proaches (cf. 215n.): Hermes is successful at Pieria, while Apollo fails to
force Hermes to reveal where he has hidden the cattle.

9 : Nymphs are said to dwell in deeply forested
areas, cf. h.Aphr. 285. At h.Apol. 225 (>7"(« !φ « Q« -
8)9 () the clausula refers to the abundant vegetation at the site
of Thebes before the city was built.
229 « +« "- : cf. Od. 13.367 ( « $

!« (Athena enters the cave of the Naiads on Ithaca, and comes
out with the gold, bronze, and fine clothes that the Phaeacians gave
Lines 227–230, 231–232 405
Odysseus), and Stesich. 184.3 « (Geryon’s birth-

place).
<"' : cf. 6 )! . This epithet occurs first here, and it
is subsequently found mostly as an attribute of Ν)!« or )@
(Fr. Adesp. PMG 926 (a).2; A.Planud. 210.1, [Orph.] H. 18.2; Nonn. D.
40.298, 41.5; with 8)( at Q.S. 3.105, Nonn. D. 42.131). "1! « is
used of caves again at Luc. Pod. 3 T ! "! «
and Nonn. D. 13.331–32 p )*/9 (|c ) "1!
1 ) ) (of Circe).
"- <"' evokes again the theme of secrecy, promi-
nent in the proem (cf. 5–9, again in the context of Hermes’ birth); at the
same time the poet looks forward to Hermes’ hiding (cf. 237, 239) and
perhaps also hints at the concealment of the cows.
0 " : the particle expresses here a “fait permanent,” in the
sense that Maia gave birth to Hermes in this cave (as is known from the
tradition), and the god exists in the audience’s present and influences
human affairs; cf. 577–78. See Ruijgh, épique §§25, 742.
229–230 'φ | $< : in Homer $" *!« describes objects be-
longing to the gods; for the gods themselves Ν" « is used (e.g. Il.
20.358, 22.9, 24.460; Od. 24.445); cf. 227–45n.
230 &5 is a denominative from )*/«, which in Homer always

means ‘ambush.’ But )*/! must mean here ‘bore’, deriving from
)*/« = ‘childbirth’; see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 137. Hesiod puns on
the two meanings of )*/« at Th. 174 and 178; cf. O’Bryhim (1997).
A double sense may be intended here as well: Maia gave birth to
Hermes in the cave, where he is now hiding.
)/1 does not occur elsewhere in archaic poetry but is found in
tragedy, where it is sometimes used of the midwife’s duties (S. OC 1322,
E. Ion 921, 948, 1596, Ba. 3).
μ« ) K % « = 214b.
231–232 >κ # ¹ … | : cf. h.Dem. 277–78 Sκ #

¹ *!! ( $μ ) | ! (with Richardson on
275ff.; also Pi. O. 7.32, Ar. Av. 1715, Plu. Alex. 4).
At Od. 5.59–61 the pleasant fragrance emanating near Calyp-
so’s cave is said to originate from burning wood; cf. also Pi. fr.
406 Commentary
129.8–9 where the pleasant odour seems to derive from sacrificial of-
ferings (S # μ h / g | † λ … 1
h1 g λ ()φ). Here no reason is given for the pleas-
ant fragrance; we may attribute it to the (divine) presence of Hermes
and Maia. We may then have another manifestation of the ‘divine fra-
grance’-motif; cf. Zanetto (1996, 270) and above, 65n.
231 # Κ « !" : « (normally with a place-name, e.g.

216, Il. 1.252, 2.722, Od. 4.599, Hes. Th. 499, h.Apol. 37) is used as an
attribute of σ « only here (though cf. Il. 6.133 #
N!7). Like its synonym &« it frequently describes holy places,
often associated with a cult; cf. Od. 8.80, Hes. Th. 499, [Hes.] fr. 60.2,
h.Hom. 24.1–2; Defradas (1955, esp. 211–12); see also 216n. On
Hermes’ cult on Cyllene, see 2n.
232 : early hexameter uses both ! ! (verse-internally

e.g. Il. 1.487, Od. 1.274, 2.252 [where - could have stood], Hes. Th.
875 ! »!) and ! (Il. 23.227), but only forms beginning
with ! - in verse-initial position (Il. 11.308, 16.375, Od. 7.130, Hes.
Th. 42). This led Lobeck (1853, 125) to propose ! here, com-
paring h.Dem. 278 (“ ! et ! Homerus Hesio-
dusque non ponunt praeter si aliter versum concinnare nequeant”).
3 ξ ' recurs only at h.Apol. 304, where
)) is adverbial. 1« is subsequently found at [Orph.] L. 247
(1« … | … )φ); on its meaning (‘with slender legs’) cf.
213n. on ! .
The presence of sheep points to Hermes’ association with smaller
animals and looks forward to 570, where the god is officially given tute-
lage over sheep; see 2n. on )7). But the poet may be making a
tongue-in-cheek comment on the preceding Sκ ¹ *!!.
< : cf. 27n.
233 '% : cf. 212, 215n., 227.

< : : with C*« usually K " is
found (Od. 7.135, 8.80, 13.63, 16.41) or " (Il. 9.582; Od.
17.413 # Cμ @), but since Apollo is entering a cave, "7!
is appropriate.
: is nowhere else used of a cave’s entrance. At Od.
Lines 231–235 407
16.41 it is the threshold of Eumaeus’ hut; at 17.30, 20.258, 23.88 it de-

signates the threshold of Odysseus’ palace (cf. Bacch. fr. 4.21); finally
at Il. 9.404–405, Od. 8.80, and h.Apol. 296 it is the threshold to Apollo’s
temple at Delphi; cf. Defradas (1954, 30–31), Rougier-Blanc (2005,
143–46). This formula, associated as it is with artificial, man-made
buildings, contributes to the cave’s shifting presentation; while earlier
the cave was likened to a , now the poet presents a new possi-
bility, that of a temple (hinted at already at 148), which he will pursue in
the following lines.
234 Ν &« : cf. 172n. and 359 (Ν ) *).

In Apollo’s eyes the cave is gloomy; cf. 169 where Hermes describes
the cave in disparaging terms, as a remote cave not appropriate for an
Olympian. However, Ν « * conflicts with ) C* of
the previous line; cf. the combination of K5( φ« (used of man-
made buildings) and Ν at 23.
J< « :μ« #A% : an imposing introduction of
Apollo (cf. 215, 227), combining (with modification) ' ("*)
#A*))« (Il. 1.370, 5.444 = 16.711; always in verse-end) with Cμ«
#A*)) (Il. 17.322). [(« « ¹*« (176, 189) might have
been used here instead; cf. van Nortwick (1975, 31). Judging by h.Aphr.
151–2 (C# F ' ("*)« Cμ« #A*)) | *< $# $
=9
") !*) ' ("*)« Cμ« #A*)) gives the im-
pression that violence may ensue: this happens in fact, but does not in-
volve Apollo’s arrows (cf. 293).
At Il. 5.443–44 and 16.710–11 Diomedes and Patroclus respectively
see the ‘Far-Shooter’ and yield to his wrath; at Il. 17.333 the ‘Far-
Shooter’ is recognized by Aeneas, although in disguise. At h.Apol. 1 the
gods are afraid at the sight of #A*))« ' . But in h.Herm. the
young Hermes has a different reaction at the sight of the ‘Far-Shooter
himself’ (an emphatic expression, pace Janko [1982, 140] and AHS ad
loc.).
Hermann’s $ *<« for the MSS Cμ« #A*)) introduces
an unparalleled combination.
235 μ # ³« σ & : in the Iliad this phrase is found always in this
sedes of a warrior noticing another warrior (usually an opponent) on
the battle-field; cf. 3.21, 3.30, 5.95, 11.248, 11.575, 11.581, 21.49. At Il.
408 Commentary
3.30 μ # ³« σ *(! is followed by # Ρ) 3 T @ $-

@/ at 3.36; cf. 237 below. For the use of this phrase in a non-mili-
tary context, cf. Od. 15.59–61 μ # ³« σ *(! #O!!
« φ)«
¹*«, | ! /**« W / λ / η !)* | …, poss-
ibly a ‘parallel of sound’; cf. 108n.
μ« λ M « ¹«: cf. 1n. The two gods are again formally
juxtaposed; cf. 236 ' ("*) #A*)) and 214–15n.
236 5% λ < : A.R. 4.616 /*« λ may be a

reminiscence of the Hymn; see above, p. 116.
J< #A% : J< picks up E ("*)« of 234.
The use of ' ("*)« of Apollo who by now is in close proximity to
Hermes may be humorous.
237 ! # 0% : ' is sometimes used of a war-

rior donning his armour (e.g. Il. 6.504, 7.103) or entering battle/into a
group of soldiers (Il. 3.241, 10.231, 10.517). The poet may be suggest-
ing that ! are Hermes’ armour; cf. 235n.; 301n. (! -
).
" () resumes the ‘divine-fragrance’ motif (see 65n., 231–32,
h.Dem. 277 with Richardson’s n.) but with a comic twist: 7()
‘fragrant’ is applied to Hermes’ swaddling clothes! (cf. 231–32n.)
237–239 ‘Just as ash covers the many hot embers (produced) from logs
(of wood), thus did Hermes, after he saw the Far-Shooter, try to conceal
himself.’ At 238 I take 8)(« with instead of !*«. Pace
AHS, 8)(« !*« ‘wood-ashes’ is redundant after $ -
7. In this simile the ! correspond to the ash, and the $-
7 represents Hermes; cf. Callimachus’ allusion to this passage in
Dian. 68–69 ² ξ @« / | 3 / E (« !9
/-
« 9
, on which see Bornmann (1968, 37) and Ambühl (2005,
295 with n. 306).
Lines 237–39 are often compared with Od. 5.488–91 ³« # Ρ «
)μ !9
5 )9 ( | $ # !/
«, o ) κ
« Ν)), | ! μ« !) @&, b 7 Κ, | γ«
#O!L« φ1))! )15 (and Cuypers in LfgrE, s.v. ()
col. 1528.35–36 calls this an “inexpert reworking of [the] simile”), but
the resemblance is remote and direct dependance unlikely. Both the
Lines 235–239 409
phrasing and the point of the similes differ: Odysseus tries to preserve
his ‘spark of life,’ whereas Hermes is simply trying to hide.
These lines call attention to Hermes’ association with fire through-
out the Hymn; cf. 108, 111 (Hermes invents the fire-drill), 357 ( -
)(!), 415 ( $ 1!!).
A reminiscence of 237–38 may be found in Sotad. 1.28–29; see
above, p. 112.
238 % : lit. ‘the base of a tree trunk,’ here it means ‘logs’; see
Strömberg (1937, 98–9), who distinguishes it from !)/« as having
an “entschieden mehr förstlichen Charakter” (‘a decidedly more fore-
stal character/connotation’). occurs once more in archaic
poetry, at Pi. fr. 33d.6 where it means ‘the foundations of a pillar.’ Its
gender is generally neuter (cf. Thphr. CP 3.6.3, Call. fr. 194.83), though
it is found as masculine at Iamb. Theol.Ar. 31 (p. 41 Klein).
6 B 2a.
For
« = ‘wood’ as burning material, cf. LfgrE, s.v. )(
$φ' is aptly used here since it is associated with both
clothing (cf. Il. 2.262, Hp. Mul. 133 [VIII 286]; cf. E. HF 361–63) and
protection (Il. 8.331, 14.343; Od. 14.349). Hermes’ action at 239 com-
bines both ideas: he is putting on his swaddling clothes (cf. 237) which
also function as a line of defense: they support his argument that as an
infant he could not have committed what Apollo accuses him of doing.
239 Ruhnken (cf. Mahne [1832, 20]) considered this a “versus ineptissi-
mus, et ne Graecus quidem, quem nemo, nisi qui plane obesae naris sit,
hoc loco ferendum putabit,” without providing any explanation for his
verdict.
E« E!μ +6 : for the juxtaposition, see 215n. and 218n.
Once again the ‘Worker from Afar’ is shown to be in close proximity to
his target, this time also aurally since the two gods’ names are juxta-
posed in the verse; cf. 236.
$ ‘ : : for $) = ‘hide,’ see 85n.; this sense has
been accepted by Humbert, Radermacher, Càssola, and LfgrE, s.v.
$) col. 463.65–73. $) = ‘hide’ corresponds to $φ )1-
better than $), an emendation proposed by Lohsee.
Both Lohsee’s $) (adopted by Gemoll) and Postgate’s
$)# (= ‘he rolled himself up’, adopted by AHS, West, Richardson)
introduce $) (a verb not found elsewhere in Homer) in an unpa-
410 Commentary
ralleled sense: when it means ‘shut in’ or ‘confine’ it refers to groups of

men or animals; cf. Th. 7.81, Arist. HA 627b12, Philostr. VA 2.11. Ilgen
proposed $) which he understood as “se ipsum occultavit.” The
same form was proposed again by Ridgeway (1888, 110), who under-
stood that Hermes “was warming himself ”; but this misses the point:
Hermes was not simply warming himself up by putting more blankets
on (so Ridgeway) but concealing himself from his angry chaser’s view,
an image in accordance with the scene’s humour.
‘ : is reflexive; cf. Od. 17.387; so already Hermann (1827,
319–22), Chantraine, GH I 264 (§ 124), and Schwyzer, II 1951. Contra
Gigliotti (1991) who takes ‘ C* as emphatic and renders ‘he tried to
avoid him (sc. Apollo).’
At 151–53 Hermes had put on his swaddling clothes and was lying
in his cradle, when his mother noticed and repremanded him. We
should imagine that he had left his cradle and removed his swaddling
clothes during the confrontation with Maia; hence the need to put them
on again and his return to the cradle (cf. 254) before his confrontation
with Apollo.
240 ‘And he drew his head and hands and feet together in a small space,’
i.e. he curled himself up pretending to be sleeping (cf. 241–42). But & #
>!) % may also mean ‘quickly’; cf. Pi. P. 8.92, LSJ s.v. S)« IV 3 a.
: cf. 106 where Hermes drives the cattle together; its
sense here ‘draw together’ can be paralleled by Od. 18.98 !L # -)!#
S*«.
5)« « recurs at Od. 11.497* (Peleus’ hands and feet
subdued by old age), 12.50*, 12.178* (Odysseus tied at his ship’s mast),
22.478* (Telemachus and Philoetius wash their hands and feet after
they have killed Odysseus’ treacherous maids and Melanthius).
241–242a φ G « <' « F

, |
&!% & !: ‘just as a newly-bathed (infant), intending to pre-
tend sweet sleep (i.e. pretending to be sleeping) but being awake in real-
ity.’ At 267–68 Hermes claims that sleep and warm baths are among his
chief interests in life.
241 φ G «: xm has

)/ (‘setting an ambush
against a young animal’). It is more likely that
)/ re-
Lines 239–241 411
presents an attempt to reconcile the two verses after φ7 W was cor-

rupted (perhaps misunderstood as φ
? cf. Ν (« unanimously trans-
mitted at 242), rather than the remains of a different version of the
Hymn, as Càssola ad loc. suggests. )/ may have been influenced
by )*/! of 230 (cf. )/1 in P here).
Radermacher retained the reading of xm and rendered “ein junges
Tier im Versteck darstellend” (= ‘representing/pretending to be a young
animal hiding’), but his parallel (S. OC 1204 " πκ »
, itself a bold expression) does not support this choice.
φ G is Hermann’s emendation for the MSS 7 W (Barnes had al-
ready proposed φ
W). For φ7 ‘just as,’ cf. Il. 2.144, 14.499, [Hes.] fr.
204.138; Antim. 156 (Matthews), Call. Hec. 74.17 (with Hollis’ n.), fr.
737 Pf. The Homeric use of this particle was contested in antiquity; cf.
A Il. 2.144 and AT and DIl. 14.499 (and Janko’s n. ad loc.): φ7 was
read by Zenodotus but Aristarchus was against. Homer always has φ
(‘he said’) in verse-initial position, and the combination φ7 W occurs

only here.
« ‘newly-bathed,’ not ‘new-born’ (pace AHS); the adjec-
tive occurs (as *)«) at Hp. Nat. Mul. 6 (VII 320), 37 (VII 380), 40
(VII 384), Mul. 141 (VIII 314), 156 (VIII 332), 217 (VIII 418), 241 (VIII
454), Superf. 29 (VIII 496) always coupled with » (‘to put some-
one in a vapour-bath’) or («. For the double ), cf. Ν))!«
and ))!« (see 168n.).
<' «: van Herwerden’s (1888, 79) emendation seems
necessary: Hermes pretends to be sleeping; cf. 7!! * in
the following verse. The MSS offer )1« (-1« M); but
)! means in Homer ‘challenge someone to battle, duel or
contest’; cf. Il. 3.432, 7.39, 7.50, 7.218, 7.285, 13.809, Od. 8.142, and
LSJ s.v. ) I B 1. Besides, ‘invite, summon’ (cf. LSJ s.v. I B 3
and 4) would be awkward with sleep.
F
: cf. 449; both times D is guaranteed. Editors
of Homer print 7«, though not all instances of it are certain (e.g.
Il. 2.2, 10.91, 14.242, Od. 12.311). 7« may represent a rearticu-
lation during the oral phase of the poems’ transmission (e.g. Il. 2.2. C
3/ D« 8« > C 3/ 7« 8«) or an error of copying
by dictation; cf. Leumann HW 44–45, Dihle (1970, 1–2), and Reece
(2009, 40–45), who follows Leumann in positing that 7« arose
from junctural metanalysis in phrases such as 3/ ζD« 8« (Il.
412 Commentary
2.2) > 3/ D« 8« > 3/ 7«, and proposes that this deve-
lopment took place in the epic tradition of Ionia, in which initial di-
gamma had dropped out earlier than in the mainland traditions, such
as that reflected in h.Herm.
242 5 <#> Dμ 59 ρ5: 5 occurs only here in ar-
chaic poetry; subsequently it is found at Ar. Ach. 852, Ec. 60, Lys. fr.
369.6, and in medical writers. For tucking an object underneath the
armpit (sometimes a weapon), cf. Pl. Grg. 469d ()"Ω Kμ )(« -
/ ), X. HG 2.3.23 (<φ Kμ )(«), Diph. 3.3, Plu. Brut. 1.5
(/ )"Ω Kμ )(«), Mor. 967c (*< !/)9 ( K«),
Paus. 5.27.8, Hld. 2.6. The poet continues the military imagery of 235
and 237: the lyre becomes Hermes’ weapon, as it were, with which he
will settle his conflict with Apollo.
243–244 When one god visits another, there is normally a formal wel-
coming in which the visitor is invited for xenia; cf. Il. 18.384–90, Od.
5.85–96 (from which this scene draws material; cf. 227–54n.), and Reece
(1993, 5–47). Nothing of this sort occurs here, and 243–44 call attention
to Apollo’s rudeness towards Maia, whom he does not address even
though he notices her.
In other versions of the story Apollo confronts Maia; cf. [Apollod.]
3.10.2 (III 114) Ω ξ
«
« μ )φ* μ«
M « K))7( λ μ E
9». π ξ
< Cμ « ! «; Philostr. Im. 1.26.3 D λ ²
#A*)) κ M $ « "«, π ξ $! λ
)( F μ *. LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 241 (ca. 530–25 BC)
depicts Apollo and a female figure (probably Maia) accompanied by a
male character (Zeus?) arguing over Hermes, who is in his cradle wear-
ing his swaddling clothes (fig. 3). In Sophocles’ Ichneutai Apollo con-
fronts the nymph Cyllene instead of Maia, who is said to be ill (Ichn.
273). Our poet may be playing with audience expectations: given these
other versions, one would expect after 243–44 that Apollo will confront
Maia, but she is ignored.
243 The verse resembles 235 in that (i) they both have a feminine
caesura that is (ii) preceded by similarly sounding verbs (*(! ~
(!) and (iii) are followed by the :μ« λ … ¹*« formula. The
Lines 241–245 413
poet again juxtaposes the two gods, indicating their reactions at notic-
ing each other; see van Nortwick (1975, 28).
! - # :# ! : cf. Hes. Th. 550–51 ZL« # Νφ 7
Ω« | W# C# (! *). Apollo sees through Hermes’
feigned childishness (cf. 245), just as Zeus sees through Prometheus’
trick. At the same time, this phrase gives a cosmic dimension to the de-
ception of Apollo by Hermes, which is thus likened to that between
Zeus and Prometheus; see 254–77n.
Reinforcing a positive idea by adding the negated opposite is a fi-
gure attested primarily in Graeco-Aryan tradition; see West (2007, 105).
244 'φ # : : cf. Simon. 555.2 M«

C « ') ")φ . Maia is once again referred to in terms of her
outward appearance (cf. 4, 7, 230).
244–245 λ φ ¹ , | )# >! 9« + & 9
:
the poet allows Hermes a longer description than Maia which mentions
both his outward appearance (# S)) and his character ()9
(«
) 9 (!).
245 )# >! : S)« does not have the affective and emotional
connotations often found with *«, and may sometimes have a
negative sense (i.e. ‘poor’, ‘bad’); cf. Moorhouse (1947, esp. 32, 34–36).
But S) is probably stating here just the fact that Hermes is small.
However, although in Apollo’s eyes Hermes appears as a child (cf. 254
τ ), he is *)«.
9« … & 9 : ‘in (his) crafty modesty.’ ( occurs
only here in archaic poetry; cf. Hp. Decent. 2 (IX 228) for the sense
‘modesty’; and further Homeric ! (‘respect,’ ‘reverence’,
LSJ s.v. II 2, or ‘feel shame’ LSJ II 3b). Hermes humorously pretends to
avoid Apollo out of a sense of shame and modesty, but this is an act of
*)«, like his pretending to be asleep (cf. 241 ")1«).
Lines 13 )1 and 86 C 7!« may also be relevant
in understanding 9 (!: at 86 Hermes ‘turns into himself’, i.e. re-
sorts to his personal qualities, i.e. craft and trickery; in other words, he
is a god of ‘many twists and turns.’ Thus already Matthiae 262 who ren-
dered )9 (« … 9 (! as “fraudulenda, dolosa consilia,” though
he considered the expression too contrived for an early poet.
414 Commentary
Porzig (1942, 174) posited an unattested epithet *3 «

(= “verschlagen,” ‘devious’; cf. 3«, 3/«), from which our
( derives. Van Bennekom (LfgrE, s.v.) assumes in ( a
lost word for ‘swaddling clothes’ and tentatively suggests ! φ9
!
comparing h.Apol. 128 (! *φ«). But why would Hermes’ diapers be
*)? It is Hermes who possesses this quality, not his clothes. Gemoll
emended to C 9 (! (‘guile’), but this would be tautological after
)9(«.
+ : the poet plays with the literal and figurative meaning of
)1!: Hermes is wrapped in his swaddling clothes like an ordinary
baby (cf. 151–52 and 237), but he is also )1 «. For the figurative
use of )1!, cf. Archil. 191.1 « φ)*(« 3 « Kμ
( )!«; for ‘wrapped (lit. ‘clad’) in deviousness,’ cf. 156
$( .
246–252 These lines (set off by ring-composition, viz. /μ//L«

) *) elaborate on an idea suggested already at 148 (
(*) and 233 () C*): Hermes’ cave acquires the status of a
temple, and the poet uses terms related to sanctuaries (see 247n. and
251n.). Furthermore, great emphasis is placed on wealth and abun-
dance (248–50). Apollo is thus presented in a more negative light than
may initially be assumed as he violates what appears to be a sanctuary;
cf. 227–45n. and Vergados (2011a). At the same time, the poet is once
again playful, as he presents Apollo looking for cows in a domestic en-
vironment and even investigates the storage rooms; cf. 261n. There may
have been versions of the story, in which Hermes had hidden Apollo’s
cattle in his own cave; cf. fig. 2 a–d.
246 « # $ 3 5 : for construed with

$, cf. Il. 12.333 and A.R. 3.1284. It indicates a ‘looking about’
inquisitively, carefully, or with fear (cf. LfgrE, s.v.; Snell [1993, 14]).
Apollo surveys the space before focusing on the storage-rooms, where
he surmises that the cows may be hidden, and the poet allows us to see
Apollo’s discoveries through his eyes.
! : cf. 252. The cave is once again compared to a
man-made construction; cf. 23, 178, 523 (= the last two referring to
Apollo’s temple!).
Lines 245–247 415
247 )« $' «: Ν« is masculine here; its gender is unclear in

Homer (Il. 5.448, 5.512), h.Apol. 443, 523, and Pindar (O. 7.32;
P. 11.4; fr. 52g.3, 95.2); at Hdt. 5.72 it is neuter. Ν «/ is a cultic
term referring to the innermost chamber of a temple, sometimes the
part where oracular responses were issued; cf. Pi. O. 7.59, E. Ion 662, IT
973, 1254–56, Ar. Eq. 1016, Hollinshead (1999, esp. 191–94 with n. 22),
and NGSL 23 A 22n.
Hollinshead considers the Ν of Maia’s cave domestic in nature
(i.e. storage rooms), but in 246–52 Maia’s cave is likened to a temple,
which implies that its Ν may be understood as more than mere
storage rooms. This should not be taken as a reference to nymph-cult,
however, since the caves where Nymphs were worshipped (sometimes
alongside Hermes or Pan) have yielded far more modest findings (rustic
votives, wooden images [<!], sometimes terracotta figurines of
pregnant women, ) φ* , votive reliefs, and miniature inexpen-
sive pottery); cf. Larson (2001, 226–58); contrast the wealth Apollo
finds at 249–50. At any rate, the poet once again enhances Maia’s (and
consequently also Hermes’) prestige as her cave turns out to be es-
pecially holy, since it has three instead of one Ν; for the sacred/
magical nature of the number three, see Usener (1903).
$ )%!: the imperfect gives the impression that Apollo’s search
lasts for some time or that he is searching in the same places more than
once.
<Ω ϋ φ : the poet does not specify from whom or
from where Apollo took the key (i.e. did Maia have this key, her maids,
or was it lying somewhere in the cave?). If Apollo took the key from
Maia, we would expect the poet to mention this since Apollo has been
presented in such a negative manner thus far.
As the poet has been implicitly comparing the cave to a temple, the
‘shiny key’ may be something similar to a temple key. Such keys were in
the possession of a )9 (/«; cf. Phoron. 4.1–2, A. Supp. 291–92 (with
ad loc.), E. IT 1462–63, Hyps. 129–30 (TGrFS), LIMC V s.v. Iphige-
neia, nos. 14, 19, 21–25; but sometimes a )9 (/« may refer to a do-
mestic setting, cf. E. Hipp. 540–41, Tr. adesp. 222 (cf. Hsch. 2949). For
keys and locking mechanisms in Homeric times, see 146n. For the repre-
sentation of priestesses and mythological figures as )9 (/, see Man-
tis (1983, 29–80), who also provides a catalogue of the keys discovered
(p. 146–48) as well as many representations thereof in plates 45–52.
416 Commentary
The ‘shining key’ is a fairy-tale motif; cf. Thompson, Motif-Index D

1552.12 (magic key opens treasure mountain) and F 886.1 (golden key).
248 « … # $< « & «: the regular divine nou-
rishment, cf. Roscher (1883, 22–33, 51–55, 67–69); but Hermes initially
disregards it (cf. 64 &).
& « is ’s reading which was substituted by the commoner
)« (M). 3 )« (3 )«) recurs at E. Cyc. 247 (³« 3 )@«
*« # S ! *) and 416 (² # 3 )« φ
« $!/1
" »«), both times in the context of food.
249–250 μ« … | 3 … : for the anaphora of )1«, see

Fehling (1969, 199–200). The repetition of )1« along with the re-
petitive pattern of 249 ( λ Ν «) and 250 ( λ Ν φ – both in
the same sedes) reinforce the idea of abundance. Apollo ignores this
wealth, just as he ignored the charms of the locus amoenus earlier
(228–34).
5« λ Ν! « … | λ e: for gold, silver, and clothes
deposited in a sanctuary, cf. Hdt. 9.116.2 (the precinct of Protesilaus)
and the temple inventories mentioned at 179–81n.; cf. also 247n. Maia’s
cave thus resembles a temple rather than a cave-adyton.
250 φ : elsewhere in archaic hexameter the adjective de-

scribes a /) (Il. 10.133; Od. 14.500, 21.118). At Od. 13.108 the
Nymphs have purple (4)* φ ) clothes. The poet could have used
!)* (cf. Od. 6.38, 11.189, 15.60), but chose to emphasize the
color of Maia’s clothes instead, as van Nortwick (1975, 113) points
out.
Ν!φ e is an unusual combination: Homer uses Ν φ«
for animals (R«,
); Il. 24.621; Od. 10.85), but $ 1φ« for cloth-
ing (φ» «: Od. 5.230 = 10.543; cf. h.Dem. 196); Hesiod maintains this
distinction (cf. Th. 574, fr. 43a.73, 198.11). Ν" b could have
been used in its place (cf. Il. 16.670*, 16.680*, Od. 7.265*, 24.59*), but
as in the case of φ * the poet seems more interested in the col-
our of Maia’s clothes. The proximity of Ν « and Ν φ, occupy-
ing the same sedes in consecutive lines suggests that the point is not
only the colour but also the luxuriousness of these clothes; on the re-
lation of Ν «/Ν φ«, see Chantraine (1933, 231, 263). For the
Lines 247–253, 254–277 417
derivation of Ν «/Ν 1« (< $ *« ‘white’ + K7 ‘web’), see

Le Feuvre (2004).
251 U: i.e. gold, silver, and clothes, rather than only clothes, as Ra-
dermacher suggested; cf. 249–50n.
"- …¹ λ : i.e. temples; cf. E. El. 1000; Hsch. 305 ¹
* (= Il. 6.89)α α ) F . Notice that Hermes’ cradle
and throat are called ¹ at 21 and 133 respectively (a sign that they be-
long to a god).
252 &8 : ‘searched, investigated’; cf. Od. 12.259. < is a

favorite verb of our poet; cf. 483 and 547.
5 4« ! : cf. 246n. Now our perception of these
/ is somewhat extended as we know the treasures they contain.
253 ] C«: see 158n.

'" ': elsewhere only at Il. 6.343 (μ # E)(
1! !(1 )/!), Hes. Th. 169 (ρ5# σ« 1! -
!(1 ( 7), [Orph.] A. 1147 (L« Ρ λ 1! -
!(1 )/!). Here the formula is framed by the names of the two
competing gods, which is another instance of their juxtaposition (cf.
215n. and 128n.)
' E : see 46n. It is certainly ironic to call 1«
someone who is hiding in his swaddling clothes and who is repeatedly
called (or compared to) a « and 7«.
254–312 Hermes’ Second Confrontation

254–277 Hermes and Apollo’s first exchange of speeches
Apollo threatens Hermes (254–59), but does not succeed in frighten-
ing him. The poet portrays Apollo as a representative of "(, which
Hermes counters with his
« at 261–77. Although the god of
prophecy, Apollo demands that the infant Hermes reveal the location
of the cows by threatening to inflict severe punishment. His threat is
inconsistent: at 256–57 he intends to hurl Hermes down to Tartarus
(traditionally a place of punishment for gods who challenge Zeus’s su-
premacy: Il. 8.13, Hes. Th. 868, fr. 30.22, 54a.4–5). But at 258–59
418 Commentary
Hermes’ fate will be to lead the way among S)! … $ !, pre-
sumably the souls of the dead in Hades. Thus it appears that in Apol-
lo’s mind Tartarus and the Underworld are one; see Vox (1981). More
important, by uttering these threats, Apollo appropriates Zeus’s role
since only the father of gods and men could punish other gods in such
a way.
Apollo and Hermes’ confrontation then acquires a theogonic di-
mension: a new god, Hermes, challenges another god’s authority and is
threatened with the same punishment as those who question Zeus’s su-
premacy. The irony of this situation is enhanced once we recall that
Apollo himself almost suffered the very punishment with which he now
threatens Hermes when he killed the Cyclopes for fabricating the thun-
derbolt with which Zeus killed Asclepius; cf. [Hes.] fr. 54a (with West’s
supplements; see Merkelbach and West [1999, 36–37]):
i [ *«
B *
[( ZL« [..] " [
* W [/])[!][« ][
W5 -)[) $# OC)1]
T] 3«, [
« λ $ ])!![(«]
…
3
#A[*)) ( Z]1«,
˙
κ Ν […];
further, [Apollod.] 3.10.4 (III 122) ZL« ξ φ"(λ« κ )"*«
Ν # C [sc. #A! )(] "(!
$))7)«, 1! C*. λ S !λ« #A*))
K1 )« L« μ μ :λ ! !«. ZL«
ξ ))(! W Cμ « μ T , (!(« ξ [(«
)! ξ μ $ λ (!. ² ξ *« «
d « μ« 5A( μ d (« 1) ) 1 , λ
« ()« "« * « (! (Notice that in Philostra-
tus’ version of the story [Im. 1.26] Apollo was tending Admetus’ cattle
when Hermes was born; the tantalizing $
« of 103 might be an ob-
lique reference to this version); cf. Phld. Piet. 433 viii (= p. 34 Gom-
perz), Vox (1981), Holmberg (1990, 94), and Harrell (1991).
Lines 254–277, 254 419
254–260 Apollo’s speech

254–259 Apollo’s address to Hermes here and in the following speech
(282–83) is rather impersonal, consists of appellatives, and does not
openly acknowledge Hermes’ divine status (or even his parentage). It is
only after Hermes’ “omens” that Apollo addresses him as son of Zeus
and Maia (301). Nowhere in the Hymn does either god call the other by
his proper name; Hermes constantly addresses Apollo as the ‘Son of
Leto,’ while Apollo twice uses ‘Son of Zeus and Maia’ (301, 446).
254 τ ): this form of address appears first here in early poetry; it
is subsequently found in Pi. P. 8.33, fr. 122.7, Anacr. 356a.1, 396.1 (both
to a slave-boy), 360.1, and Thgn. (e.g. 1234, 1257). τ is in conflict
with 1 E
of 253 and with the fact that Apollo has by now
realized Hermes’ divine status (cf. the bird omen of 213–14). Apollo
thus aims at insulting Hermes by reducing him to a mere ‘boy’ (which
of course he is!) and denying his divine precociousness. Hermes’ reply
at 473, where he addresses Apollo as , takes its cue essentially from
this peremptory τ ; see n. ad loc. and Heiden (2010, 419).
: this form (rather than the expected !, which
was in fact restored by Gemoll) is unanimously transmitted.
occurs at IG IX 2, 661 (SEG 37: 488; 457 BC, Larissa). We may also com-
pare Arcadian , a form attested attested in two defixiones
(Audollent [1967, 78–80], nos. 43–44, who however prints ; the in-
scriptions date from 3rd c. BC according to Hoffmann 1900, 201): the
original - was replaced by - due to the influence of the secondary end-
ings after the intervocalic -!- was lost. (Epic Greek has ! with -!-
restored by analogy.) Hoffmann (1900, 204) dates the change of - to -
after the second half of the seventh century BC on account of the co-
existence of and $@!9 ( in the same inscription, which implies
that the contraction of - to -9 ( had already taken place. But Dubois
(1998, I 178, III 320–22) expresses reservations about the attribution of
the inscriptions to Arcadian precisely because of this coexistence of
and $@!9 (; cf. further Schulze QE 433 and Janko (1982, 138).
Υ
: cf. ( at 373; the verb is attested only here in archaic
hexameter. It is next found in Pindar (e.g. P. 1.93, N. 9.4, I. 8.55a),
Bacch. 10.14, fr. 14.2, fr. 33, Hdt. 1.23, and becomes the standard term
for disclosing information in oratory (LSJ s.v. II; so already at Hdt.
420 Commentary
2.1212: ) Cκ ³« )! μ« μ "!) (1!

Cμ 3/ / 7); Hermes will pick up Apollo’s legal termi-
nology in his defense speeches (cf. 264, 372–73).
254–255 These lines resemble the structure of Od. 7.151–52 C λ

κ S 1 # ¹ ! | !!, λ κ ( φ) Ν
7 !/: an imperative is followed by enjambed !!, itself
followed by ; but note the different context (Odysseus urging the
Phaeacians to convey him to Ithaca vs. Apollo ordering and threaten-
ing Hermes) and the sense of (see 255n.)
255 " : ‘quickly’; cf. LSJ s.v. /1« C I 2 and 212n. The MSS offer
the Attic », which Allen retained and used as evidence for the
Hymn’s Euboean/Oropian provenance (see p. 148). But the epic form is
attested in the MSS at 212 and is more likely to have been corrupted
into the Attic from than vice versa.
The adverb is placed in the emphatic, runover position and makes
Apollo’s threat more imposing; cf. Od. 7.151–52 (quoted above); but it
is often found in orders with no implication of threat, e.g. Il. 16.129,
19.68, Od. 10.72 [Hes.] Sc. 95, S. Aj. 581, OC 824, E. Med. 100, Theoc.
15.29, 24.48.
&: ‘for otherwise’; cf. LSJ, s.v. B 1.
"(): ‘dispute, quarrel’; cf. LSJ, s.v. φ IV; this sense
occurs first here and should be added to LSJ (loc.cit.), where it is men-
tioned that it does not occur in Epic.
255–256 These verses reflect Il. 8.12–13 )(λ« C *!

)1! OΚ)*· | _ ')Ω W5 « T *,
where Zeus threatens to punish other Olympians if they attempt to in-
terfere in the Trojan War; cf. 254–77n. Note that h.Herm. does not pre-
serve the hiatus of the Homeric prototype; cf. Shipp (1972, 265). The
threat of confinement to Tartarus implicitly acknowledges Hermes’ di-
vine nature.
255 : 3 is in keeping with Apollo’s behaviour so far; cf.

246–52. His threats violate both the conventions of xenia (cf. above)
and Zeus’s *!« since he is trying to assume a prerogative that does
not belong to him, i.e. to punish other gods.
Lines 254–258 421
256 <6 is Ilgen’s emendation for the MSS ")@, which duplicates
the sense of W5. )"@ and ")@ are often confused in the MSS;
see West (1973, 21).
: see 172n.
257a +« @φ + λ $5 expands « T

* of 256 and strengthens the threat. @φ + is a
novel combination; * « regularly describes people, often dead
(e.g. Il. 22.481, Od. 9.53, 24.169, [Hes.] fr. 43a.69, A. Th. 904 (lyr.) etc.;
cf. Hsch. 2003 * · ). Here it should be under-
stood as ‘being equal to (or resulting in) a terrible doom’. @φ « (regu-
larly of the Underworld) is normally qualified as *« (e.g. Il.
12.240; Od. 11.57; Hes. Th. 653).
$5 is another favorite word with our poet; cf. 157. Later
(346, 434, 447) it will be Apollo who experiences $(/.
257b–258 : … | $ … : for this combination in the context of a

threat, cf. Il. 21.123–25 and h.Apol. 364–68. These lines gloss and ex-
pand $7/.
We may have yet another ‘parallel of sound’ here; cf. Il. 21.123–24
Cξ !ξ 7( | … 7!, $)) …
: : cf. [Apollod.] 3.10.4 (III 122; quoted above). Apol-
lo’s words here imply that Hermes’ offence to him was graver than his
killing the Cyclopes; hence nobody will be able to rescue the divine
child from Apollo’s wrath. This may also be an indirect dig at Maia:
whereas Leto was able to intervene and save her son from Zeus’s wrath,
Maia will not have the same influence with Apollo.
258 :ξ : i.e. Zeus!

$ ': ‘release, set free’; cf. Od. 12.200 and Vox (1981,
109–10). $)1 is found in this sense in curse tablets in the formula
λ C $)1! * …; cf. AE 1903: 58.3–4 (Attica, 4th c.
BC; quoted at 2n. on 1«], Jordan (1985, 158) no. 18, and del
Amor López Jimeno (1999, 208–209). In all these cases, $)1!
implies binding, which is not the case here, as 259 shows; but at 409–13
Apollo will (unsuccessfully) attempt to bind Hermes.
422 Commentary
259 &«: = both ‘wander’ (cf. Od. 4.367) and ‘go to one’s harm’
(so LSJ s.v. 3 II 1); cf. 160 3 ). 3 is often used as a
curse in Comedy; cf. Ar. Nu. 783, Pax 1294, Ec. 169, Cratin. 129,
Pl.Com. 182.6 etc.
>! # $ : ‘among weak men,’ i.e. $(, such as
the souls of the dead (cf. Od. 11.29); cf. Od. 14.492 (S)9 ( S) and
Moorhouse (1947, 36). The Homeric S) (‘feeble,’ used of
heroes about to die at Il. 16.843 and 22.337) and Horace’s levem turbam
(Carm. 1.10.18) may also be relevant. S)! # $ ! refers
neither to infants (AS) nor to men who have Hermes’ size (AHS).
Bothe conjectured S)!, suggesting that Hermes would be the
“dux hominum perditorum,” such as Tantalus, Sisyphus, and Ixion.
Apart from the fact that no such leader of the proverbial sinners
existed in the Underworld, S)*« is used in epic in an active sense (cf.
LfgrE, s.v. S)*«, S)*«); in a passive sense it is found at A. Pers. 962
(lyr.).
Souls are sometimes represented as small winged men; cf. LIMC V,
s.v. Hermes, no. 622 (Lekythos, London BM, B 639, 500–480 BC),
where Hermes, holding scales on which two souls are “weighed,” stands
between two men in armour about to engage in a duel.
π! '% is usually construed without a preposition, but cf. 461
(, also transmitted here by ). This may be an ironic reference to
Hermes’ role as the psychopomp (officially conferred on him at 572).
Hermes will function later as the leader of Apollo; cf. 392 π1
(with a pun on «) and Vox (1981, 111).
260 see 162n.
261–77 Hermes’ reply

Hermes’ response to Apollo’s threats has rhetorical traits, as Rader-
macher 127–28, observed, but does not correspond to any specific
apologetic structure; see Görgemanns (1976, 115). Hermes expresses
his surprise at the accusations and denies any knowledge of the deed,
reinforcing his claim to innocence with an argument from probability
( μ *«), on which see Görgemanns (1976, 116–17) and Ken-
nedy (1994, 14), who considers this “the earliest specific example of ar-
gument from probability … in Greek.” This type of argument has been
Lines 259–262 423
associated with Corax and Teisias, but any attempt to date the Hymn
on these grounds remains inconclusive; see p. 138, 140.
Hermes’ speech can be broken down in the following sections: (i)
261–62, where he expresses his surprise; (ii) 263–64, where he denies any
knowledge of the deed; (iii) 265–66, where he declares his innocence
and properly answers Apollo’s accusation; (iv) 268–69, which indicate
Hermes’ concerns; (v) 269–73 return to the argument from probability;
(vi) 274–76, where Hermes offers to swear an oath, yet another expression
of his craftiness; (vii) 277, where he professes his ignorance again.
The speech is characterized by an affected childishness: (i) the poet
has the god express himself in short, choppy clauses that sometimes
lack connectives (263–64, 266–67, 273); (ii) there are repeated rhythmi-
cal patterns: eleven of the seventeen lines end with a verb-form in the
metrical shape vcc (261–66, 269–71, 274, 277); of these six include
a trochaic noun before the verb form (263, 265, 266, 269, 274, 279),
while 268 reproduces this metrical pattern, though without a verb; (iii)
in addition to the rhythmic repetitions, there is a considerable degree of
dictional repetition (263–65, 265–66, 275–76); see 264n. and 268n., van
Nortwick (1975, 94–95), and above, p. 22–25.
261 ‘Son of Leto, what is this harsh speech you’ve uttered?’

] C: see 58n.
0« is the reading of the majority of the MSS in both branches
of the tradition; 3« in E might reflect a corruption of 3« in the
majuscule. Homer has ρ« or 3«, though some MSS transmit
3« at Il. 1.106.
I punctuate with a question-mark after 261 with Stephanus (so Càs-
sola), instead of coordinating 261 and 262 as most editors do (thus
most recently West): we would need a ‘why’ at the beginning of 262
which cannot be supplied from .
262 : ‘actually’; in a question it denotes strong surprise or indig-

nation; see Denniston, GP 311 ii. Thus we need not emend to _ with
Matthiae 264.
< « $!' « @ « & "# ¹ «;: cf. 191 where Apollo
uses this phrase when addressing the Old Man. Just as at 116, "*«
could be read here.
By putting this phrase in Hermes’ mouth, the poet aims at showing
424 Commentary
that Apollo’s search is not *« (cf. 272 $ «): field-dwelling cows

have no place in a domestic or temple-like setting as Hermes’ cave has
been described by the poet earlier. On the other hand, mythical cattle-
thieves do hide stolen cattle in caves; cf. Hermes at 103, 116 and Cacus.
Note, too, that Hermes has already taken into his home an animal that
dwells outdoors, the tortoise (cf. R ! &@!).
263–265 In four lines we have no fewer than seven negatives. For the
repetition of negatives concluding with Κ, cf. Denniston GP 509 who
observes that editors tend to emend Κ to C (so Baumeister at
265), but the examples of C … Κ are so many that they do not jus-
tify such intervention; and Hopkinson on Call. Cer. 5.
263 Hermes appears to be an F , of whom Thphr. Char. 1.5 says λ

$ 1!« κ !! λ Ω φ
! κ ' ; see
Diggle ad loc. and his introductory note on p. 166–67.
This line is a tricolon crescens, an illustration of Behaghel’s Law
(“Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder”), i.e. the tendency to structure the
phrase so that shorter cola precede longer ones, the phrase thereby
gaining rather than losing weight as it develops; see West (2007, 117
with n. 132) and Fehling (1969, 312) for examples.
: ; , : " : cf. Od. 23.40. Hermes himself behaves as he
instructed the Old Man at 92 Ω κ Ω ρ λ φμ«
$ 1!«. He thus enacts the proverb that he uttered earlier in the
poem.
264 : f ': see 254n. on (1. Hermes adopts Apollo’s

legalistic language.
: f $ represents the consequence of the first
half-line: Hermes claims that if he had seen the culprit, he might have
been willing to report him so that he might receive the fee. He thus pre-
tends to miss the point of Apollo’s order, assuming that Apollo is ask-
ing him as a potential informant who may receive compensation for his
service. In his Ichneutai 42–44, Sophocles presents Apollo as indeed of-
fering a reward to whoever finds his lost cattle:
[1 ]
« ! »! $)[)]
[....] P« Ρ!« […]
[…]. μ /
!*« !# ² [«.]
Lines 262–266 425
appears only here in archaic hexameter; subsequently it

is normally used in the plural, a usage termed ‘Attic’ by LSJ (cf. Hip-
pon. 102.4 [singular]; further, S. Ichn. 87 (%[ , Thuc. 6.27.2;
Phryn.Com. 61.5 (in a dialogue with Hermes), And. 1.27, 1.40).
265 < - &: cf. 14n., where the poet declares that Hermes was
indeed a ‘driver/thief of cattle’.
) - φ%: at Bacch. 18.18–19 μ« φ@« is Theseus who
has just completed his labors on the road from Troezen to Athens.
Hermes’ choice of *« is comic: one need not be *« to lead
cows away, and here Hermes may be exaggerating (cf. 276n. on K-
). We cannot miss the humour here: a god one of whose epithets
in myth is 1« denies that he is *«!
0 : the key-term in the argument from probability. Hermes is of
course telling the truth here: a baby, wrapped in its swaddling-clothes,
does not resemble either a strong man or a cattle-thief. But what seems
to be the case may not be; cf. the Muses’ words in Hes. Th. 27–28 and
Majorel (2003, 73).
266 At this point Hermes proceeds to describe in a positive way his fam-
iliar concerns as an infant. Of course, there is sustained humour in this
section, since an infant (by definition speechless) not only speaks, but
even argues rhetorically.
Editors have unnecessarily changed C into Κ# (Gemoll) or C#
(Allen) to obtain a connective. We have seen that Hermes expresses
himself in short, unconnected clauses that indicate emphatic denial.
For the asyndeton see above, p. 48.
: &μ 0! : ‘this deed has not been committed by me,’
i.e. ‘I didn’t do this’; cf. LSJ, s.v. *« I 2; cf. S. OT 572 Cμ s
*« (‘the blood of my father, shed by me’).
«: ‘rather’; cf. LSJ, s.v. A 6. Elsewhere, « with the perfect
has temporal sense (referring to a situation that was true in the past and
continues to be so in the speaker’s present); see Schwyzer II 273–74 (5).
(): = (here) . Hermes is claiming that he did not commit the
act of which Apollo accuses him because he is interested rather in other
things (listed in the subsequent verses).
Ν : cf. Od. 1.151, where the formula is also explained by
the following verse (! ξ λ φ !λ Ν)) 7), | )7 #
426 Commentary
S /(!1« · # $7 *«): the second hemistich as-

serts what is expressed in the first.
267–268 For the combination of food, clothing, baths, and sleep, cf. Od.
8.248–49, which describe the soft life of the Phaeacians (λ # π
« φ)( « / | b # <(" )
λ C). But of course Hermes expresses what is common practice in
the rearing of infants; cf. Gal. VI 33 # σ, ³« F (, ! -
) / 7! φ9
λ ) « K / (!;
Theoc. 24.3 $φ « (sc. Heracles and Iphicles) )1!! λ
)7!! ) «.
267 & ! : picks up () from the second hemi-
stich of 266 (anadiplosis) and expands the thought expressed there in a
more assertive manner (notice ‘I, for my part, care …’).
π«: an expression of Hermes’ mock-dignity; cf. 370 and 465.
! « is another part of Hermes’ strategy to present himself
as an ordinary infant; contrast h.Apol. 123 C# Ν # #A*)) / -
! 7! 7( . In the Ichneutae it is the nymph Cyllene who
nurses Hermes as Maia is said to be ill.
268 An instance of syllepsis (3/ has both ! and ) as

its objects, but agrees semantically only with ! ), “whose result
[ranges] from the comical to the ill-formed” (Trask [1993] s.v. zeug-
ma 2). It reinforces the affected childishness of Hermes’ speech which
serves to support his argument from probability. See also Quinn (1982,
29–31) and Premiger and Brogan s.vv. syllepsis (p. 1250) and zeugma
(p. 1383) for more examples and bibliography. This is certainly humor-
ous, since the infant Hermes uses rhetorical tropes in his speech.
"3 : the plural indicates habitual action; contrast Il.
22.444.
269–272 Here Hermes changes his strategy by suggesting to Apollo

what the reaction of the divine audience will be: the immortals would
wonder at the absurdity of Apollo’s accusations against an infant. In
this he expresses the sophistic/rhetorical ideal that a lie may sometimes
be more plausible than the actual truth.
" : see 32n.
Lines 266–272 427
) « &'5": cf. Il. 11.671–72 (³« ²*# #H)! λ π

« 1/( | $φλ "()!9().
270–272 These lines – Hermes’ only lengthy sentence in this speech –

expand the wish-clause of 269 and restate in different terms the argu-
ment from probability. Hermes chooses his words so cleverly that
strictly speaking he is not lying: he can deny that he crossed the cave’s
entrance with the cows because he hid them in a different cave.
270 ! " # $" : when the issue is taken to Olympus,

there will be no amazement, but laughter; cf. 389. Only Apollo is in a
state of wondering in the Hymn; cf. 219n.
271a ) !!- ‘a child recently born’ is further amplified

and explained at 273; the phrase recurs at 331, in Zeus’s question to
Apollo. For the form of , cf. 214n. For the adverbial , see
Maehler on Bacch. 18.16.
271b–272 3 "' | < λ # $!' highlights

once more the absurdity of Apollo’s claim; cf. 262n. with the
dative implies a group or community and it is often used with nouns/
substantives denoting persons; cf. 270 and Chantraine, GH II 117
(§ 165).
< λ # $!' is added in enjambment almost as an after-
thought: it is already unlikely that a new-born baby would cross the
threshold, and the point about his leading cows adds to the absurdity of
the accusations.
272 For the form of $ 1)! as a two-termination adjective (rather

than M’s $ 1)9 (!), cf. $ 1)« at 262. M and [ transmit
$ 1)9 (! at 412, but $ 1)!() is unanimously transmitted at
492.
$%« $! '« is modelled on $ « $ 1; cf. Il.
15.53*, Od. 1.179*, 1.214* (v.l. )<), 4.383*, 4.399*, 14.192*,
15.266*, 15.352*, 16.113*, h.Herm 380 μ # $ « $ 1, 459
μ ξ $ « $ 1!.
Neither $%« nor $ 7« occur elsewhere in archaic poetry;
but cf. Il. 2.384 () and 18.370 . Radermacher 127
428 Commentary
associates it with the concept of μ in oratory (i.e. words chosen

so as to correspond to the speaker’s character); on the term, cf. Ernesti
(1962, 284–85), Pohlenz (1933), and Cicu (2000, 123–28).
Hermes himself is concerned with μ of his own rhetoric:
the artificial childishness of his speech (see introductory note, p. 426)
aims at creating the impression that his speech matches that of a child.
At the same time, $ « highlights the absurdity of Apollo’s claim
(a new-born crossing the vestibule with fifty head of cattle) and perhaps
also Apollo’s rude behaviour in bursting into the cave (i.e. in
the sense of decorum).
273 is another tricolon crescens; cf. 263n. /ξ« *( picks up
, while 4) … /@ hearkens back to
1 … $ 1)! (271–72).
5"«: occurs first here and subsequently at Hdt. 2.53.1, but epic has
/&*« (e.g. Il. 1.424, 13.745, 19.195, Od. 2.262, 4.656).
274–277 These lines were bracketed by Hermann (p. lxiv) on the

grounds that (i) 276–77 are identical to 310–11; and (ii) Hermes’ oath is
not mentioned by Apollo in the Olympian scene. But (i) presents no dif-
ficulty: Hermes at 310–11 concludes his second speech in the same
powerful way as this one; these lines presumably impress Apollo, who
quotes them subsequently in his speech to Zeus (364–65). (ii) Hermes’
oath is not mentioned again because, although sworn, it has no practi-
cal significance as it is a rhetorical ploy; see 275n.
As a final step in his defense, Hermes declares his willingness to
swear an oath (274–76). These lines present some of the typical features
of Homeric oath-scenes; for the typology and terminology of these
scenes, see Arend (1933, 122–23), Callaway (1990), introduction and ch.
1–2, eadem (1993, 22–24). Hermes’ oath has an introduction (274, the
offering of the oath) and a tenor (275–76, the content of the oath).
Callaway (followed by Fletcher [2008]) believes that Hermes does not
swear the oath, since the oath is offered in the future (274 S) and
an execution and/or confirmation section is absent (contrast 518–23):
but Hermes’ words at 275–76 are simultaneously the oath’s tenor and
execution.
There are, furthermore, similarities with Hera’s oath at Il. 15.36–46:
both gods swear on Zeus’s head (Il. 15.39 ~ h.Herm. 274); they both
Lines 272–274 429
evoke ‘the great/greatest oath’ (Il. 15.37–38 μ« 8 ~ h.Herm.

274); the oath’s clause is introduced with the formula ‘κ + indicative’
(on which see below; Il. 15.41–44 ~ h.Herm. 275–76); finally, both gods’
oaths cause their addressees to smile (Il. 15.47 ~ h.Herm. 281, where
Apollo’s laughter partly derives also from Hermes’ non-verbal activity in
278–80). Like Hera in Il. 15, the divine child does not perjure himself, be-
cause his words are carefully chosen; cf. Hes. Th. 789–804 on the effects
of divine perjury. Hermes’ ability to swear equivocal oaths is reminiscent
of Autolycus, Odysseus’ grandfather (and Hermes’ son in some sources)
whom Hermes endowed with )!1( and Ρ « (Od. 19.394–97).
Hermes’ offer of an oath is reminiscent of similar oath offers in
Athenian courts; these are termed “evidentiary oaths”; cf. Bonner and
Smith (1938, II 146). The oath was a means for the accused party to
prove their innocence; see J. W. Jones (1956, 136–39). Gagarin calls
these “rhetorical oaths,” which “are a common feature of forensic
pleadings, but when a litigant offers to swear an oath, although this
offer may be treated as an oath, it has only the rhetorical effect of adding
emphasis. A litigant may add some formal trappings of religious oaths
to his offer, such as proposing to swear on the heads of his children, or
using solemn language (_ 7) in stating the content of his oath, but as
an oath challenge it has no validity unless the opponent accepts it” (Ga-
garin [2007, 46], emphasis added). Here Hermes both proposes to swear
on his father’s head (274) and uses solemn language (κ … K!/-
… at 275–76). See also Gagarin (2007, 43–45), who thinks that
while it makes no difference whether Hermes actually swore the oath or
not, such offers are treated as oaths by their addressees.
274 + ξ "«: Ilgen’s # )« (adopted by Càssola) is not necess-

ary; cf. h.Apol. 46 where )- is guaranteed, h.Dem 160 with Richard-
son’s n., Od. 15.317 (though Ρ # ) could be read).
μ« φ : i.e. Zeus. φ)7 or with the genitive
(sometimes used as a form of address) stands for the person, the head
representing the essense or power of that person; cf. Il. 8.281, Od. 1.343,
11.557, and Onians (1998, 95–100). For a similar oath, cf. Il. 15.39,
h.Aphr. 27 with Faulkner’s n., E. Hel. 835 (4μ Ρ !μ -
@!), Juv. 13.84 with Courtney’s n.
With this oath Hermes hints at his wish to take the issue to Olym-
pus; cf. 312. Contrast 383, where Hermes swears by the 1 . By
430 Commentary
uttering this oath, Hermes further enacts his role as a cunning orator
and thus, as in Hestia’s oath at h.Aphr. 27, this oath serves to define (at
least partly) the young god’s sphere of influence.
! Ρ : normally the gods’ ‘great oath’ is Styx’s water; cf.
518–19 (where Apollo offers Hermes the choice between swearing by
Styx or nodding his head), Il. 15.37 (Hera swears both by Styx’s water
and Zeus’s head), Od. 5.178, Hes. Th. 784, h.Aphr. 79, Pi. O. 7.65, Hirzel
(1979, 171–75), and Callaway (1990, 36–38). Gods sometimes swear by
natural powers (e.g. Il. 14.272–73 / λ ξ 9

' 9( ξ Q) /* -
)"* | 9
# ' 9( Ϊ) (). « Ρ « can be used
for an oath sworn by humans as well, e.g. Il. 1.233, 9.132.
275–276 ‘I profess that neither I myself am guilty nor have I seen any
other thief of your cows.’ The first part of the oath (275) is equivocal:
one could also read ‘neither do I profess myself that I am guilty …’ The
second part (276) is strictly speaking not a lie.
… ’ …D5 | 2%: for the oath formula
‘7 + indicative,’ cf. Il. 10.329–31 F! ZL« C*«, «
*!« 6H (« | κ ξ « b! $κ /7! Ν))« | T @,
$)) ! φ( ξ« $)=!, 15.41–43 κ # κ *(
P! !/ | ( T « λ 6E , ! #
$ 7, | $)) Cμ μ« 1 λ $@, Hdt. 2.118.3
) … λ S1« λ $, κ 3/ E)( (ξ
)* / 7, $))# ρ C A1) ; cf. also
Hdt. 2.179 (/
S*! κ ξ ' * )). This construction ex-
presses solemn or categorical denial; cf. Goodwin GMT 271 (§686),
Chantraine, GH II 321 (§483). Generally when such a negative oath is
offered, it is followed by a positive one (introduced by $))); Hermes
thus offers here an incomplete oath.
275 D5 … ρ : for K!/! with the present infinitive

(‘profess’), cf. LSJ, s.v. 2. K!/ should not be taken parenthetically
as Schneidewin (1848, 678) and Agar (1926, 82) suggested, as it is part
of the oath formula.
276 occurs only here and Opp. C. 1.517 (s )(=!κ φ
)*«); Homer has )(« at Il. 3.11 and the compound )«
at Il. 22.281 (‘tricky’) et al.
Lines 274–277 431
D% : the plural does not simply stand for !; in his at-
tempt to avoid perjury, Hermes denies having stolen the cows that be-
longed to all the gods (cf. 71 … "*«), which again is strictly
speaking true as he only took Apollo’s.
277 e « ¹ <« +: ‘whatever those “cows” are’; this adds a

further touch of humour: Hermes presents himself as ignorant of the
theft as well as of the word ‘cow,’ which is in keeping with the poet’s
strategy to present Hermes as an ordinary child.
μ ξ « ρ $ '%: ‘I only hear the story,’ a humorous re-
working of Il. 2.486, where the formula expresses the contrast between
human knowledge (deriving from hearsay) and the knowledge of the
Muses (who are eye-witnesses to the events they related); cf. Kraus
(1955, 71): “ )«, normally the song’s content, is equated here (sc. at
Il. 2.486) with ignorance and is negatively evaluated compared to the
knowledge reserved for the gods and conveyed to the poet only through
the Muses’ benevolence”, and Pucci (1998, 36–48). Of course, Hermes
is an eye-witness to the theft he committed and possesses accurate
knowledge of the fact. In addition, given that Hermes appears in the
poem also as an epic bard (cf. his hymn at 57–61 and his theogony at
425–33), his appropriation of this Iliadic phrase acquires metapoetic
connotations: just as an epic bard confers )« on the heroes of his
song, so does h.Herm. confer )« on Hermes. The audience, in other
words, receives through this poem the )« (report) of Hermes’ deeds,
and thus Hermes receives )« (fame). But within the story, the first
character to convey )« to Hermes is no other than Apollo himself,
who in his address to the Old Man and his speech to Zeus essentially
disseminates the knowledge of Hermes’ actions. But )« is also what
a poet is after, and the extent of the poet’s )« guarantees the )«
of his characters; cf. Ibyc. S 151.47–48 λ !1, P)1 «, )«
Νφ '<« | ³« # $ λ μ )«, and Vamvouri-Ruffy
(2004, 164).
432 Commentary
278–280 Hermes’ non-verbal conclusion to his speech

278–279 λ μ $μ <φ% $'% | >φ' G-
@ ²6 « 0 " λ 0 ": ‘and darting quick glances from
his eyes [lit. eye-lids], he kept tossing with his eyebrows (i.e. lifting
them), looking now in this direction and now in that.’ This is reminis-
cent of Hes. Th. 826–27, ¹ (sc. Typhoeus) R!!14 | !!9 («
φ)9
! K# Sφ 1! $ !!. Besides the verbal resonances
($ 1!! ~ $ 1!! in the same sedes, K# Sφ 1! ~ Sφ 1!,
and $μ ")φ ~ … R!!), there are some thematic corre-
spondences as well: both characters’ eyes flash, and both characters
present a threat to the divine cosmos as it exists up to that point (Ty-
phoeus attempts to overthrow Zeus, while Hermes desires the honours
attributed to Apollo). In addition, Typhoeus is thrown into Tartarus
(Hes. Th. 869), while Apollo has threatened Hermes with the same pun-
ishment at 256–57. Finally, both Hermes and Typhoeus produce hiss-
ing sounds (cf. 280 $! & ~ Hes. Th. 835 W&!/#; further [A.]
Pr. 355 [Typhoeus] ! ! φ()! ! & φ*" and
[Apollod.] 1.6.3 (I 40). It goes without saying that the (implicit) com-
parison of Hermes to Typhoeus here is humorous.
278 Cf. Od. 4.153 C ² μ K# Sφ 1! ρ".

$μ <φ% is usually found in the context of crying (Od. 4.114,
14.129, 23.33 A.R. 1.1067, Q.S.14.393) or metaphorically of desire
‘dripping from one’s eyes’ (Hes. Th. 910), beauty ‘breathing around’
([Hes.] Sc. 7), or sleep being ‘shaken off one’s eyes’ (Bacch. fr. 1.77, S.
Tr. 889–91, lyr.).
$'% : $ 1!! occurs in archaic poetry only in h.Herm.
(cf. 415) and the Hesiodic passage cited above; see 45n. on $ .
279 >φ' G@ : various translations have been proposed for

this phrase: “moved the eyebrows up and down” (LSJ; cf. Càssola’s
“muoveva su e giù le sopracciglia” and AS “kept lifting his eyebrows”),
“he kept signalling with his eyebrows up and down” (Richardson), “he
tossed about with his eyebrows, i.e. wagged his head from side to side”
14 Pace West; cf. Kirk (1968, 145 n. 1).

Lines 278–280 433
(AHS), while Gemoll adopted Hermann’s Sφ « W&! (see his

note ad loc. for earlier conjectures).
Editors generally assume that Hermes is here signalling with his
eyebrows, but what kind of signals are these? Od. 12.194 (Sφ 1!
!&), often cited as a parallel, is not relevant to our passage be-
cause Odysseus is conveying an order to his men ()! # )
' «). W& moreover is not elsewhere associated with the
eyes; it is found at Il. 14.257 (χ # *« /) | W&
1«; of Zeus hurling the gods about on Olympus) and in
medical writers in the sense of ‘tossing (in bed)’ (e.g. Hp. Morb. 2.17
[VII 30], Epid. 4.31 [V 176], Gal. XV 816; cf. Ar. Lys. 27–28 where it is
used with a double entendre). Perhaps a passage from Aristotle can give
us an idea of what Hermes is doing here: at HA 491b14–18 Aristotle dis-
cusses what the eyebrows can reveal about someone’s character: Kμ ξ
)
@) Sφ 1« φ« (‘of twofold nature/form’)· o ¹ ξ
C ) -« !(, ¹ ξ μ« κ W κ -
)*(# 3/! ! φ (‘harsh’), ¹ ξ μ« L« φ«
λ F « (‘the eyebrows that are curved towards the side of
the forehead [i.e. upwards] are a sign of a mocker and a dissembler’), ¹
ξ !! (‘drawn together,’ i.e.‘frowning’) φ*. At 263
Hermes behaved like an F , and now the poet has him assume an
appropriate physiognomonic characteristic.
²6 « 0 " λ 0 ": this clausula recurs at [Hes.] fr. 294.2
used of Argus, whom Hermes killed; cf. 294 L« #A φ*(«.
The fact that Hermes avoids meeting Apollo’s gaze is an indication
of his guilt. Cf. Zanetto (1996, 272) who proposes that Hermes attempts
to hide his flashing eyes, which reveal Hermes’ metis and mischief, from
Apollo.
280 # $o@% : ‘whistling loudly’; cf. LSJ s.v. *« V and

LfgrE, s.v. *« II 2. $! & recurs subsequently in Luc. VH
2.5; but the simple ! & is found at Hippon. 79.11.
For whistling as a sign of contempt or lack of interest, cf. Dem.
18.265 (<«, Ω # !1 ). Hermes’ whistling may also be a
means of bolstering his confidence and feigning indifference.
Ϊ ³« " $ '% : ‘as if listening to vain (i.e. harmless, inef-
fective) words.’ ³« is M’s reading, whereas the other branch of the
tradition has * or various combinations of ³« and *; in L ³« has
434 Commentary
been corrected to μ. AHS considered ³« a gloss that was added to ex-
plicate the construction and compared Suda, / 174 s.v. / (/
! )()*) and E. Hipp. 1339–40 (L« C!"« λ | 9 7-
! « C / !), but these are not truly parallel.
³« seems preferable. Hermes is not listening to a pointless speech:
Apollo has threatened to use force against Hermes and he actually at-
tempts it at 293; cf. also 308. Instead, Hermes pretends that he is listen-
ing to a harmless speech. * may have entered the tradition under the
influence of Il. 5.715 Ϊ) μ K!(. In fact, our Ϊ)o
³« may be a modification of the Iliadic phrase, which would ac-
count for the lengthening of Ϊ); cf. 371 ) o )-
) ~ 197 ) and 17 !) - -
& ~ h.Apol. 201 #A*)) &. Radermacher printed
@« (= ‘just as’), which is however unparalleled in this meaning in early
Epic; see Schwyzer II 577.
For Pelliccia (1995, 74) $! & implies “(paradoxically) that
the deliverer of the preceding elegant speech is too young to talk,” while
Ϊ) μ $ 1 “designates not contempt for Apollo, but
feigned incomprehension.” However, $! & does not have these
connotations; )& and 5))& are normally employed to de-
signate the speech of infants (see Kotzia [2007, 1418–19]). And despite
Hermes’ self-presentation as an innocent and ignorant infant (cf. 277n.),
nowhere in the Hymn does he actually claim not to understand. The in-
fant god pretends here to be indifferent to Apollo’s accusations, which
are not *, as we have been told, and expresses his feigned indiffer-
ence by his whistling and avoiding looking directly at Apollo.
281–312 Hermes and Apollo’s second exchange of speeches

This set of speeches is significantly shorter than the previous one, and
this time Apollo materializes his threat to use violence (292, 307–308).
At the end of his address to Hermes at 291–92, Apollo declares that the
young god has earned the leadership among thieves. In his attempt to
remove Hermes from his cradle, Apollo meets with the infant god’s
“omens” (a fart and a sneeze, 295–97), which cause him to stop. He
seizes Hermes again at 307, at which point the divine child repeats the
conclusion of his first speech (310–12 ≈ 275–77), which he caps with the
weighty challenge to refer the matter to Zeus. This will in effect be
Lines 280–282 435
Hermes’ introduction to Olympus, a theme typically found in birth

Hymns (e.g. h.Apol. 1–13, h.Hom. 6.14–18, h.Hom. 19.40–47), to be
sure, but the Hymn poet has added an interesting twist to it: Hermes’
will make his first appearance on Olympus as a defendant.
281–293 Apollo’s second speech

Apollo adopts a different strategy in this speech, initially at least.
Whereas in his previous address he threatened to cast Hermes into Tar-
tarus, now he acknowledges Hermes’ stealth and even goes so far as to
bestow on Hermes the title of the ‘leader of thieves.’
281 This speech introduction is novel, but its constituent parts have
parallels in early epic (see formulaic apparatus).
4μ !«: at Od. 14.465 4)μ )! is one of the ef-
fects of wine. Here 4)μ )!« indicates that Apollo has not been
deceived by his brother’s lies; he can see through Hermes’ trickery (and
is perhaps amused by it) and therefore decides to change his strategy; cf.
Miralles (1993, 58–59), Halliwell (2008, 100).
282 τ is regularly a term of endearment (see Kirk on Il. 6.55,

who notes that in its two Iliadic occurrences in the plural [2.235 and
13.120] it “implies excessive softness”), but can also be ironic as at Hes.
Th. 544 and 560 (where Zeus addresses Prometheus) and here, in view
of the following characterisations.
is found elsewhere as a term of abuse against Paris in a
verse that also consists of a string of attributes (Il. 3.39 = 13.769
:1! ρ« Ν ! ξ« ). This quality of
Hermes is acknowledged by the narrator at 577.
φ«, formed by analogy to φ 7« (Il. 23.438, Sol.
36.21 [iamb.], A.R. 3.936) occurs only here in early hexameter, and sub-
sequently in Pi. N. 8.32–33 (/ # Ν φ!« _ λ ) |
¹1) 1 ²*φ«, )φ 7«, μ R«) and
Nonn. D. 2.27 (who also has )φ at 4.68 of Aphrodite). -
φ « would be prosodically equivalent to )φ «, but the
poet probably wished to emphasize Hermes’ *)« 1«.
N # ;%: cf. 156n.
For the line as a whole, cf. 436–38.
436 Commentary
283 «: the Iliad poet has )) only at verse-initial position
and )) « within the verse. This distinction (if conscious) is not
maintained by the Odyssey poet, who has )) in verse-interior
position at 17.420 = 19.76.
$ : see 178n.
σ «: ‘pleasant to dwell in.’ Leumann, HW 191–94 ex-
plains how the passive sense of came about: the intermedi-
ate stage between the active and passive use of is revealed at
Il. 3.387–89 ( (U … … | *) , D ¹ [ -
1!9 ( | -! F )), where 1!9 ( was misconstrued
and applied to [ instead of ¹ (= Helen); this triggered the
creation of formulas in which had unambiguously passive
sense.
284 0 5 (‘by night’) occurs only once in Homer (Il. 11.716) instead
of 1/«, and is subsequently found in hexameter at Nonn. D. 2.172,
5.551, 9.67, but frequently in tragedy (e.g. [A.] Pr. 645, S. Tr. 501, E. Hec.
69, 72, HF 113, Hel. 1190, [E.] Rh. 55, 501, 788 etc.). Hermes’ cattle-
theft occurred at night, and therefore he is called )(« μ«
' at 290.
Κ 5# Z … φ-: a strong understatement. Cf. Call. Dian.
33 C/ Q 1 S!!.
&# Κ= ": for the scansion of Κ= (elsewhere disyllabic)
as a recent development in epic diction, see Meister (1966, 133–34). For
the double -!- in aorist dental stems, cf. !!« at Il. 9.488*, Hes. Op.
39 !!, and Chantraine GH I 409 §194.
Sitting on the ground is a sign of despair; see Richardson on h.Dem.
197–201 (p. 218–19), and cf. $ /7!« below at 286.
285 @ : LSJ, s.v. I 3 render ‘collect ! 1(,’ and this should be
understood as a euphemism for ‘stealing’ (cf. AHS ‘packing’), a sense
probably also found (in the middle voice) in Lys. fr. 197 Carey ( μ«
K) ) κ « , ! !«
/) Ρ! s*« # _ )! )"Ω <7 <φ« 3/
Kμ )(«. The word occurs first here and is supplemented at Archil.
140.2. At Men. Sam. 599 (! 1 ) it means ‘deceive,’ a collo-
quial use which Gomme-Sandbach ad loc. derive from the language of
cooking (‘dressing up’).
Lines 283–288 437
# ρ : cf. Archil. 297, Semon. 7.104 (both iambic), and Pi. P.
1.72 for the neglect of digamma. Homer has ρ /F « (as
does our poet at 61); here the phrase had to be slightly modified to ac-
commodate ! &.
Ν Bφ : cf. 149 oC 1 —« # Κ. 5*φ« oc-
curs only here in early epic, but it is found in archaic lyric
(Sappho 44.25, 94.28, Pi. fr. 52f.8), Herodotus (7.218.1) etc.
U# $! '«: cf. Od. 4.609–11 γ« φ, (! ξ "κ $μ«
M)«, | / < 3*« # 3φ# 3 # S*&· |
b*« « $, φ) «, s# $ 1«: a younger character
(Telemachus/Hermes) has just finished a speech (cf. γ« φ ~ γ« Ν #
3φ( 278) to an older figure, who smiles ((! ~ 4)μ )!«
281); the older character addresses the younger with a speech contain-
ing s# $ 1«, in which he is (or appears to be) kindly disposed to-
wards him. This phrase recurs in emotional responses (Il. 18.95*, Od.
19.255*) or threats (Od. 17.479*, 18.338*, 18.389*, 19.255*).
286 $!' « … < «: a novel and unparalleled combi-

nation; but cf. Il. 18.162 and Hes. Th. 26 (« Ν )) for the
idea. Elsewhere, Ν )« is used of cows (cf. 262). BHMQV Od. 14.435
transmits that herdsmen prayed to Hermes as their protector.
287 - &@% : cf. 64. This phrase derives from a simile (Il.
11.548–55 ~ 17.657–64), and Apollo’s words here recall the context of
the simile (a predator attacking herds at night). This is the same motive
that the poet attributed to Hermes’ cattle-theft earlier. Apollo is per-
haps trying to reduce Hermes’ status by implying that he consumes
meat (i.e. he is mortal).
M’s 7) is surely due to 288 (@! 7)).
288 $ « $!9 < - λ 6 % is transmitted in all

manuscripts; but x offers in the margin $9
« " )! λ
* « S!! (Càssola’s 288a). West (1962, 178) argued that
$)9(! " was a gloss that supplanted " )!, and then the
line was adapted to accommodate this substitution; but in his 2003
Loeb edition he prints 288. If 288a is genuine, it would be the first at-
testation of " *) before X. HG 4.6.6. Perhaps $7!«, a short-
vowel subjunctive like 1!« in the following line (cf. 43n.), was not
438 Commentary
understood properly and was subsequently changed into $7!9 (« (as

appears in M L P and p), which then underwent haplography.
For the collocation of herds of cattle and sheep, cf. Il. 11.696 = Od.
12.299 ($)( " λ # ); cf. also Il. 15.323. Our
verse seems based on a combination of Il. 11.696 and Od. 4.413 (@!
7)).
288a has a distant parallel in Hes. Th. 445–46 " )« ξ "
λ *) )# | « # * S.
289 Ν# Ν! as often accompanies an imperative ( "). The

purpose clause (κ … +'«) is parenthetic, resuming Apollo’s pre-
vious threat to cast Hermes into Tartarus.
For
λ ' in the context of a threat, cf. Od. 4.685.
Apollo’s words here seem to imply death (cf. Q.S. 13.27, possibly a remi-
niscence of the Hymn), which would be in keeping with Apollo’s desire
to lower Hermes’ position (cf. above &) and his earlier
confusion (see 254–77n.).
290 & < : " implies that the cradle was
placed on a somewhat high place; cf. the depiction on LIMC, s.v.
Hermes 248 (fig. 3) where the ) in which Hermes lies is located on
a table.
« μ« J): cf. 283n. on 3/.
291 !3 σ : Denniston GP 445–46 notes that in Homeric Greek σ

always has a backward reference, which here is to and
)φ «.
λ 0 is clarified by ? , cf. Il. 16.498–99 (!λ
Ω λ 3 (φ( λ R« | 3!! - -
«).
!«: ‘gift of honour, privilege’; for other occurrences of «
to the gods, cf. h.Aphr. 29, h.Hom. 29.4 (both referring to Hestia),
Il. 4.49 = 24.70 (of burnt offerings on the gods’ altars), and [A.] Pr. 231;
cf. 573.
292 $5μ« φ% ? : Matthiae 267 wished

to expunge this verse and take of 291 to refer to μ« ' .
Lines 288–293, 294–306 439
But 292 is indispensible: Apollo’s pronouncement here is in keeping

with his attempt to assume Zeus’s role in conferring honours on gods.
The asyndeton is epexegetic.
$5μ« φ% : cf. 175n.
? : cf. h.Aphr. 148* (where Anchises ad-
dresses Aphrodite who has just recounted to him her false story of her
abduction by Hermes). For )7!! in divine aetiology, cf. Call.
Del. 269.
293 γ« Ν# 0φ: cf. 409 where Apollo again finishes a speech and at-
tempts to use force on Hermes.
i is conative, ‘attempted to lift (with a view to carrying him
off)’; cf. 298 and 304n.
Matthiae 41–43 contended that lines 294–306 were composed “ab

inepto homine” in order to make up for lost verses and proposed the
supplement μ # E
« 1! $" )! to be in-
serted between 293 and 307, omitting everything in between. He found
fault with (i) the circumlocution used for Hermes’ wind ()7 !-
μ« 3 ) and raised several questions: (ii) Why does Hermes emit
such an “omen” and for whom is it intended? (iii) What is the purpose
of Hermes’ sneezing after his first “omen”? (iv) The whole sequence
seems to lack logical sense: Apollo first lifts Hermes, who emits his
“omen” presumably to force Apollo to drop him. Apollo then sits in
front of Hermes, who gets up and starts walking. But then Hermes
asks Apollo where he is carrying him. Note that Agar (1926) too dis-
missed 296 as “certainly spurious, even if Hermes did what is sup-
posed, as is quite likely”, adding that it “should be removed, full stop
and all.”
But these objections are not justified: (i) Hermes’ first “omen” di-
rectly follows Apollo’s statement whereby he bestows upon the young
god one of his most important roles, the patronage of thieves, and func-
tions thus as a confirmatory omen; (ii) the humour of 296 lies partly in
the fact that something that infants might normally do is presented as a
premeditated action (note !1 … φ !!«) and is expressed in
mock-heroic language (see below); (iii) the second omen is confirm-
atory as well; (iv) the explanation for Hermes’ protest that he is being
carried by Apollo may lie in the latter’s words at 303 !L # σ ²μ π-
440 Commentary
1!«, where the future may be understood as minatory; we can

imagine Apollo attempting to seize the divine child who does not want
to be picked up and disciplined and therefore tries to escape his older
brother. Lines 320–21, furthermore, describe what is referred to in 303.
See Pelliccia (1995, 72–74) who discusses this passage in relation to the
Callimachean attribution of speech to voiceless entities.
294–297a Hermes’ non-verbal reply

294 4 # Ν φ «: !φ &! generally means ‘to de-
vise a plan with someone else’ (cf. Il. 1.537, 1.540, 9.394, Od. 4.462 [with
")«], Hes. Th. 471 [with
], 900 [with $* * ]),
and once in the Odyssey it has the sense of ‘ponder’ (with a Ρ«
clause) at 15.202. Here it is used absolutely and indicates that Hermes’
“omens” are intentional. AS suggest that this might be a parody on
ZL« K5" («, which is an attractive suggestion since Hermes is
both lifted up high and produces a noise, albeit a bodily one; cf. Ar. Nu.
394.
4« #A!φ «: From the perspective of oral poetics, this
clausula “has licence to summon metonymically the entire composite
character of the god Hermes … [t]he ‘tell-tale detail’ acts as a nominal
site for the extrasituational, traditional whole that is Hermes”; Foley
(1997, 148–51, at 150). But it is characteristic of the poet’s humour that
Hermes is named the ‘mighty slayer of Argus’ (a traditional formula,
e.g. Il. 16.181*, 24.345*, Od. 5.148*, h.Dem. 346*, 377*, h.Herm. 414*,
h.Aphr. 129) at the moment when he performs a bodily function which
may imply fear (296).
295 +% μ : this combination is unparalleled. At 213*

Apollo met a real *« (= bird of omen).
( probably combines here the sense ‘let go,’ with a humor-
ous reference to *« (‘bird of omen’), and ‘sending forth,’ e.g. a
messenger (Il. 12.342, Od. 2.92). Cf. Od. 2.146–47 where Zeus is said to
send forth two eagles as an omen γ« φ T()/«, Ω # Ω
C 1 ZL« | K5* φ
« R « ( !.
= is also used in Homer of discharging a missile (e.g. Il. 3.118,
5.15, 5.280, 11.270 etc.).
Lines 294–297a 441
296 !μ« 0" : ‘a wretched labourer of the belly’, i.e. a

fart, although the description allows also for a belch. For the breaking
of wind as a parody of an omen, cf. Ar. Eq. 639. The situation reminds
of Ar. V. 1177 ξ ³« π [# 4)!# . At the same
time, Hermes appears to be performing what in Comedy is expressed
through ! or ! ! (= a sign of contempt; cf.
Sommerstein on Ar. Pl. 617–18).
For a similar riddling circumlocution that parodies high poetic
style, cf. the riddle at Eub. 106.1–9 with Hunter p. 200–203. Katz (1999)
suggests that )7 in our verse would prompt in the ancient audi-
ence an association with *« (the lofty spirit), while ! μ« 3
would deflate the image and cause the audience’s amusement. There
may also be here a reference to the ! « or ! ,
people whose stomach was possessed by a spirit and who could thus
prophesy; the term was also used for the possessing spirit itself; see
Katz and Volk (2000, esp. 124–26).
Homer avoids reference to lowly bodily functions and the organs
involved in them, but uses words devoid of any obscene meaning, eu-
phemisms, or circumlocutions instead (e.g. )*«, 1!«, ,
φ)*(
); in Hesiod we do find some instances of such vocabu-
lary (e.g. Op. 373 !*)« 7, 727 S/); see Wackernagel
(1916, 224–29) and Bain (2007, esp. 51–52).
$" normally implies immoral behaviour, a transgression
which often leads to punishment (e.g. Il. 4.409, 11.695, Od. 1.7, 1.34,
3.207, 7.60, Hes. Th. 164, Op. 134, 261, fr. 30.16). See Morani (1990,
151–53) for its semantics and etymology. Of course here the only
$!)« is Hermes and not the $)@(«.
$!!6 occurs first here, and subsequently at Call. Hec. fr. 69.6,
Musae. 7, 237. Call. Jov. 68 (7 # # K / $-
)@(, for which see Clauss [1986, 165–66] and above p. 17) and Nonn.
D. 13.36 (}( | 7 ( $! $)@() may be
reminiscences of the Hymn. For the formation, cf. 301 ! .
297a & %« ξ # :μ &: sneezing was often re-

garded (and still is in some places) as an omen; see Pease (1911), Wim-
mel (1971, esp. 157–61 with n. 3), Bouché-Leclercq I 162–66, and Prit-
chett (1979, 126–27). At Od. 17.546–47, Telemachus’ sneeze upon
hearing of his father’s imminent return is a confirmatory omen; so too
442 Commentary
is the thunder at Hdt. 3.86.2. Hermes, too, confirms with his omens
Apollo’s description of him as the ‘leader of thieves.’ But even if we
choose to ‘read’ an ominous dimension into Hermes’ sneeze, it serves a
more practical purpose as well, i.e. to cover up his fart as Bernardakis
p. 1099a observes.
297b–303 Apollo’s third speech

297b–298 ) # #A% | 0 ≈ Il. 1.43 where Apollo listens and
responds to Chryses’ prayer; for other instances of a divine power lend-
ing a favourable ear to a human request expressed through )1, cf.
e.g. Il. 1.43, 1.218, 1.453, 5.115, 9.509, 10.284, 13.303, 16.236, 24.335,
Od. 2.262, 3.385 = 6.328, 4.762 = 6.324, 4.767, 9.536, 20.102, Hes. Op.
9, 726, [Hes.] Sc. 68, Archil. 108, Sappho 1.7, 86.5, Pi. O. 14.5, fr. 52f.58,
fr. 78.1, Bacch. 11.106, 17.65, Sol. 13.2, Thgn. 4, 13, A. Supp. 77, Th.
626, etc.
When hearing someone sneeze a by-stander might exclaim Z
!! (≈ Gesundheit); cf. AP 11.268.3.
298 ' E : cf. 46n. Notice the humorous juxtaposition of the
traditional “glorious Hermes” and the preceding /λ ") and the
fart-omen of 296; cf. 232n.
299 Z@ : Apollo enacts what he predicted Hermes’ victims would

suffer at 284. Gemoll ad loc. suggested that Apollo sits in his capacity as
an interpreter of signs. This is confirmed by 298 3 ) and 301–303,
where Apollo issues a prediction on the basis of Hermes’ ‘omens’ that
comes true at 391–95 (i.e. Zeus’s will, 396!); see p. 36.
λ &' « ² ) : for the genitive, cf. Od. 4.733 and Il.
13.315 ( λ !!1o )). For Apollo’s haste, cf. 212, 215, 227,
233, 255.
300 % : see 51n.

μ« " 0 : a traditional speech introduction. The
speaker typically approaches the addressee, and the speech-formula
is often preceded by !
ξ ’ cv (@)/)# 1«/ ""@«; cf.
Il. 7.46, 8.280, 11.429, 11.522, 23.68, 24.682, Od. 5.338, 6.21, 15.45,
17.414, 20.32, 23.4, h.Apol. 246, 378. For our verse, cf. Od. 23.164–65
Lines 297a–303 443
r5 # σ« # Ν # 3& λ *, 3 $!(, | $ x«

$)*/, μ« 3. This speech introduction is used
later at 329 where Zeus taunts Apollo.
301–303 Apollo’s first attempt to use violence on Hermes has failed.

Thus in the following two-and-a-half lines ( ! … !) Apollo
attempts yet another strategy: he deceitfully tries to instill confidence to
Hermes so that he might trick him into believing that he is safe. When
Apollo utters !L # σ# ²μ π1!« (σ# = σ ‘immedi-
ately’), we should imagine him attacking Hermes once more; this causes
Hermes’ protest at 307–12 (cf. &!, S !)1«).
301 ": ‘have courage’; in its other two occurrences in the Hymns
(h.Aphr. 193, h.Hom. 7.55) ! is directed by a god appearing to a
frightened mortal.
*! -: a humorous coinage formed by analogy to
$!@(« (cf. $)@( at 296), on which see Meister (1966, 30)
and Fraenkel (1910, I 23, II 208–209 n.2). Zumbach 7 rightly considers
this and (/ of 436 as “ausgesprochen komische Bildun-
gen” (markedly comic formations). ! continues the com-
parison between Hermes’ swaddling clothes and a warrior’s armour; cf.
237n.
μ« λ M « ¹: see 2n. Apollo openly acknowledges
Hermes’ status as Zeus’s son which he had already perceived at 214.
302 λ 0: ‘in the end’ or ‘after all’; cf. Il. 18.357, Od. 8.520, 21.24.
< - ;φ" : see 94n. and p. 36 above.
303 ' « +% ): i.e. Hermes’ fart and sneeze. This phrase is par-
ticularly humorous since it is uttered by the oracular god himself.
Apollo was unable to find the stolen cows through his own skill in divi-
nation at 214, but he claims that he can find them with Hermes’ frivol-
ous omens.
4 # σ"# ²μ π! '«: cf. 259, where π1 is again
found in one of Apollo’s threats. At 392 Hermes actually leads the way
to the stolen cattle and enacts his function as «; cf. Clay
Politics 102 who observes that in the Hymn “Hermes becomes his func-
tion by enacting it” (emphasis in the original).
444 Commentary
304–312 Hermes’ protest

304–305 Cf. A.R. 3.516 ! /*« # $* ! «, possibly a
reminiscence of the Hymn; see p. 115–16.
304 ² # σ# $ " -«: we should imagine Apollo once again at-
tempting to seize Hermes here, which causes the infant god to dart up
quickly in a vain attempt to escape from Apollo’s hands.
K « E«: cf. Od. 24.1 (E
« ξ K))7« 5/« <-
)), to which Aristarchus objected; cf. MV Od. 24.1 K))7«
C F ( ν Ϊ<. See also 2n.
305 9 +6 picks up the preceding «. !9

often accom-
panies verbs of motion that have a more specialized meaning than ;
cf. Il. 13.687 (U!!), Od. 15.209 ($"), Archil. 196.40
(*«), A. Th. 371 (@ ), E. Hipp. 902–903 ($φ *(),
1152 (² @«), Ba. 212 ( ) »), [E.] Rh. 85–86 (!/).
305–306 Νφ% ξ # Κ 5λ &6" | ! $φ# \ «

+ «: ‘wrapped around his shoulders with his swaddling-clothes,
he pushed them (sc. the swaddling-clothes) with his hands past his ears’:
! operates $μ with )« and @.
The manuscripts at 306 offer nominative forms: )« (M,
adopted by Radermacher, AHS, West, Richardson, who all punctuate
with a comma after 305), and )« ([) or ')« (p); the last
two appear only in rather late sources ([Zonar.] s.v. * «, col. 1560
Tittmann, and EM, s.v. )φ« p. 329.1–2: ² )( 3/ κ W).
)« would normally require an accusative of the body part
and a dative indicating the thing wrapping; cf. Il. 5.186, 17.492, 18.522,
Od. 14.479, h.Apol. 450, Heliod.Trag. SH 472.11, and Andrisano
(1988–89, 41). But the poet has already deviated from this construction
at 151 (! $φ# c« )«; but contrast 245 )9 («
) 9 (!), and there may be good reason for his choice:
$φ# c« is often used in Homer of a warrior putting on his weapons
(e.g. Il. 3.328, 10.34, 11.527, 15.479, Od. 8.416, 23.366; notice too that
in Od. 4.245, 17.197= 18.108 it is Odysseus who puts on his disguise). In
this case, $φ# c« would pick up the metaphor already suggested by
1 at 237 and ! of 301.
Lines 304–307 445
Several emendations have been proposed: ), adopted by

Càssola, was advanced by Schneidewin (1848, 679), who did not offer
any justification or translation. )« (middle voice) was proposed
by Fick (1896, 271) who rendered “zog sich die Windel mit den Händen
an beide Ohren sie um die Schultern sich windend”; but this would
require a present participle, and does not square with the fact that
Hermes was already wrapped in his swaddling-clothes (cf. 301). Wind-
isch proposed the reading adopted here, tentatively suggesting that 305
be athetized; but the last point seems unnecessary.
Gemoll suggested (! $φ#) c« ))«, assuming
that Hermes wished to tighten his swaddling-clothes that had come
loose, but he did not explain 305. AS proposed to take )« abso-
lutely, rendering ‘he pushed with his hands the clothes up to his ears,
round his shoulders, huddled up.’ Although the sense ‘huddled up’ is at-
tested for )« (see LSJ, s.v. F) B 1), it is not appropriate here
since Hermes is said to have risen from his cradle and to be moving
quickly. AHS, on the other hand, construed @ / !λ Κ
with tmesis (‘he pushed his ears back’) which they understood as “a
more vigorous equivalent of $* < C« or «,” a simi-
larly awkward expression. For an overview of previous attempts at
emending and explicating this passage, see Andrisano (1988–89, 34–36);
her suggestion that Il. 21.489–91 (_ W, λ $φ « λ )
/ « 3 | ! 9
, < 9
# Ν # $# c F *<, | C-
! # Ν # 3 # Κ *!) is the model for h.Herm.
305–306 seems improbable.
But what is the purpose of Hermes’ action in these verses? I believe
he is not trying to avoid hearing Apollo’s threats, as is sometimes sug-
gested: these threats have already been uttered by Apollo and were
understood by Hermes; besides, Apollo does not issue any threats in
the verses immediately preceding 305–306. Rather, the tightly wound
swaddling-clothes prevent the divine child from running away from
Apollo; therefore he pushes them with his hands (which were presum-
ably wrapped up as well) past his ears (which involves an upwards
movement of the hands) so that he can free himself from them and run
faster.
307 E!: this form of address is again possibly humorous, since

‘he who works from afar’ is now only too close to Hermes; cf. 234n.
446 Commentary
"- @ % : this too contributes to the humour of

the passage: of the gods thus far Hermes knows only Apollo and Maia!
@ (‘most wildly enraged’) does not recur in early epic;
but cf. Hes. Th. 928 &(! (which presumes the existence of
&7«), fr. 204.126 &«, h.Herm. 495 &«; and
subsequently at Pi. P. 4.10, 9.38, N. 3.63, 4.13, fr. 52i.64, 156.1, 231,
S. Aj. 137, E. Med. 1266, A.R. 1.1029.
&- is Aeolic for - and has intensifying force; cf. Schwyzer II 449,
Chantraine, GH I 169 (§65), Risch (1974, 255) with n. 3. It has been
wrongly assumed that &7« may connote prophetic skill; see Bras-
well (1979).
308 > '«: ‘pursuing’ or even ‘maltreating’; cf. 373. It derives

from R !« (‘rump’; Attic R «) and ); Phot. II p. 29 Naber
glosses it as ) and ). Cognates are found at Anacr. 393
(S !*)« ξ 5A (« φ) /(), A. Pers. 10 (S !)
*«) for which the Scholiast offers ), !!,
", and Max. 5.107 ($))# Ν 7 S !)1 |
1) S) )(9
! ); see also Frisk and LfgrE, s.v.,
and Beekes, s.v. S !1 (.
The literal meaning seems to be “² ) (peel) μ R (sc.
φ*« ))” as Schwyzer (1923, 22) notes; cf. Lasso de la
Vega (1955, 114–21) who compares with other expressions from mili-
tary language that derive from the semantic field of R «. Pernée
(1985, 169), on the other hand, sees in this verb an image derived from
hunting and observes that S !)1 “seems to describe with ad-
mirable precision the dog’s action at the moment when, having pursued
his prey relentlessly, it finally reaches it: the dog attacks it from behind
(R !-), rending with the teeth its back and flanks.” In Comedy )
can mean ‘thrash, beat’ (cf. Pl.Com. 12, Timocl. 31.1, the parasites
'L« $λ 1 [‘punching-bags’] ) | /«
$)(!, Apoll.Car. 5.10). Apollo may be spanking Hermes here,
possibly by completely removing his swandling-clothes first; cf. Müller-
Stübing (1879) who rendered “den Hintern schälen = entblößen”
(‘peel’ i.e. expose, lay bare).
309 ;"# $ : cf. Od. 1.47, Hdt. 1.210.2, Ar. Pax 267, Call. fr.
110.48 for a similar curse.
Lines 307–312, 313–328a 447
309–312 Lines 309–11 repeat 275–77 (see nn.), but Hermes’ statement is
not framed as an oath here. Whereas at 275–77 Hermes swore on his
father’s (Zeus’s) head, this time he concludes his speech with a reference
to Zeus as the judge to whom they should refer the matter.
312 μ« λ 8 : the combination of ( * λ <-

! occurs again at Thuc. 1.140.2 ( ( « ξ
φ $))7)« * λ /!) and 5.59.5 ('«
ρ #A « « λ <! F!« λ ²«)
and must have been a technical term implying a fair negotiation;
cf. 393n. on $")"9(! a term that occurs in treaties. Cf. also Hdt.
5.83.1 and [X.] Ath. 1.18 ( ( * λ )"). On this
polar expression Henrich (1899, 11) observes that actions which
require two participants are represented as having themselves two
sides. Of course, Apollo should not have to provide any legal satisfac-
tion to Hermes.
313–396 Apollo and Hermes on Olympus; the trial scene

(Hermes’ third confrontation)
313–28a Hermes and Apollo arrive at Olympus
Lines 313–321, a summary of the recent events, link the previous scene
(Hermes and Apollo’s confrontation) with the following (the two gods’
appearance in the Olympian tribunal). For a similar summary, cf.
182–83. These verses reflect the theme of the new god’s introduction to
Olympus, but with a comic twist: Hermes does not arrive at Olympus in
the same grandiose manner as Apollo in h.Apol. 1–13 or Aphrodite in
h.Hom. 6; instead he is a defendant who has to argue for his innocence
in front of Zeus and the other gods. The fact that the dispute between
Hermes and Apollo is presented as a quarrel between two brothers that
the father has to resolve further enhances the comic effect: it is a pro-
blem within the family!
Stylistically, the arrangement of the verses mirrors their content:
the two gods argue the case point by point, and accordingly the verses
bounce between Hermes and Apollo (cf. 314a: Hermes; 314b: Apollo;
315–16 [)&] Apollo; 316 (end): Hermes; 317–18 (K))7«):
Hermes; 318 [#A *<]). The construction, furthermore, breaks
448 Commentary
down at 315: lines 315b–18 are a parenthesis, explaining $φλ« μ

3/«, and are organized chiastically:
² ξ 1 E

X
² … K))7« #A *<
This scene may be inspired by Il. 21.504–508: π ξ *< )"!
) « x«α | p # Ν # 5O) b :μ« λ /) -
"ξ« , | *!! ξ μ« φ& 1! 1 (, | $φλ
# Ν # $" *!« 'μ« α κ ξ λ s | s) κ
K («, λ $ πL )!!«. In both cases (i) a younger
deity rushes to Olympus (Hermes, Artemis), (ii) followed by an older
one (Apollo, Leto); (iii) the deity approaches Zeus’s knees (in h.Herm
both gods do this); (iv) father Zeus poses a playfully teasing question
to one of the gods (Il. 21.509–10 ~ h.Herm. 330–32; in the Iliad pas-
sage this is emphasized by πL )!!«; in h.Herm. Zeus laughs
only after Hermes’ performance, at 389); and (v) the god replies with a
speech that indicates his or her indignation (Il. 21.512–13 ~ h.Herm.
334–64).
313 ‘They were questioning explicitly each of these issues.’ A.R. 1.394
C λ Q ! φ « $) may be a reminiscence
of the Hymn.
3 Z: ‘each of these issues’; cf. LfgrE, s.v. Q !« 2b" for
other examples of // Q !. In Homer, this phrase
is usually followed by a verb compound with (cf. Il. 1.550
Q ! ; 11.706 Q ! ; cf. Od. 12.16), to which
our 7( corresponds. Cf. also A.R. 3.401 Q !
( « $ 1«;
: ‘expressly, explicitly,’ hence ‘point by point.’ This ad-
verb occurs first here, and is subsequently found exclusively in prose, es-
pecially in oratory, often denoting legal provisions (e.g. Isoc. 18.20,
Dem. 9.27, Is. 3.68, 10.10, Aeschin. 2.60, 105, etc.); cf. van Nortwick
(1975, 45), who speaks of “careful legalistic discrimination” (emphasis
in the original). Its use here is in keeping with Hermes’ earlier oratorical
display (v. 261–77) and prepares us for the formal trial that follows.
& : this is the reading in p, adopted by Hermann (thus also
Càssola), instead of . (M, [) could be used with
multiple subjects, agreeing with the one closest (cf. Il. 18.398 7 #
Lines 313–328a, 313–314 449
EC *( >« # K< *)) ), but is in agree-

ment with 3/« of 315. Besides, as AS note, the verb should not be
doubted: both parties question each other in the preceding section.
is a favourite verb with the poet, who uses it also 252, 483
(both with <-), 487, 533, 547 (<-), 564 in different meanings.
314 + «: ‘solitary’ or ‘tending sheep’? The adjective could have

either meaning. In Homer it describes places: Il. 13.473, 17.54 /@ )
*)) (cf. Apollod. FGrH 244 F 260 #A))* « o ) R« -
) [= Apoll.Soph. p. 119.25 Bekker]), 19.377 !) *)),
24.614 Κ ! *)!; Od. 11.574 *)! R !!;
cf. GDRK I fr. 1r.29 *)! Κ !; IG II2 4826.2 *)«
[Κ !] in a pentameter). The ancients etymologized it from R«
( A.R. 4.1322 λ « R« )!, !λ ξ ¹ #E()«, Hsch. o
377); from ρ« (BQV Od. 11.574 *)!α 7«, s« 3!
* )!, Ρ ! $! φ!, Hsch. o 376); and some
sources offer both etymologies ( [Gen. gr. 44] Il. 13.473 (II p. 129 Ni-
cole) o) ¹ S« ν o
) ρ*« « λ *« ), < i ()*
μ 7) , Et.Gud. 423.53–56 (Sturz), EM p. 618.41–44). It means ‘soli-
tary’ at Pi. P. 4.28 ( # *)«
)) and fr. 70b.19
(Wφ # ρ! 5A « )«), and probably also at A.R. 4.1413
(where the *) 1φ are distinguished from those C «
… 9
! and the /«). Whatever its etymology,
the overarching sense seems to be ‘solitary’ or ‘desolate’ either because
in such a place one would be roaming alone (the shepherds’ solitary
lifestyle may be relevant here as well) or because only sheep (hence no
men) would be frequenting it.
Either meaning would suit Hermes: up until now he has been living
apart from the other gods and has accomplished all his actions alone,
and *)« ‘solitary’ would function as a last reminder of Hermes’
solitary status, as he leaves his cave permanently. But Hermes was
also the patron god of small animals, including sheep; cf. 570
($φ*) … 7)!) and 2n.; in that case the adjective would be
proleptic.
λ ] « $!μ« ¹«: cf. 500. This formula does not occur else-
where, though the clausula $)μ« ¹*« is frequently found in hexa-
meter poetry and describes mortal offspring. Cf. 432 :μ« $)μ« ¹*«
(= Hermes).
450 Commentary
315 $φλ« "μ 05 «: cf. / μ 3/« at Il. 20.32, describ-
ing the division of the gods in the Trojan war. $φλ« μ 3/« oc-
curs only here, but it has formulaic background: μ 3/« pre-
ceded by an adjective frequently occurs in hexameter poetry (e.g. Il.
13.704, 15.710, 16.219, 17.267, 17.720, Il. 19.229, Od. 3.128, Hes. Th.
833, Hes. Op. 112, 170, Thgn. 81, 765 etc.).
At 391 Hermes and Apollo are described as ²*φ μ 3/-
«, which is the result of Zeus’s mediation.
² ξ φ% - : Wolf’s emendation of φ7 to φ is
necessary; the manuscript reading yields an odd construction (φ7
and E
would have to be taken with )&). Other emendations
have been proposed: Ludwich 118 considered the following )& a
synonym of ! (!!) and changed to ( φ9
.
Alternatively, a lacuna has been posited after 315 (thus AS/AHS, who
read ( φ7 and suggest that the lacuna was facilitated by
φ7 – E
). Wolf’s φ (accepted by Gemoll, Càssola, and
West) involves only a slight change of the MSS reading, which may have
arisen from the influence of the clausula ( ")7 (Od. 1.86,
h.Apol. 132, 252, 292) and the following line (E
).
316 : $%« is a predominately prosaic expression (e.g. Lys. 33.7,

Isoc. 4.20, 15.296 [Pl.] Hipparch. 231c, Plu. Dem. 18c, Mor. 618d);
it recurs elsewhere in poetry only at [Simon.] AP 16.26.3 (= FGrE 690)
and E. fr. 839.6 (lyr.).
&λ < : ‘on account of the (stolen) cows’; cf. LSJ s.v. B III 1.
&@ : ‘attempted to seize.’ Homer has )& (in the forms
[])& and )&), while )& appears in the Hippocratic
corpus (Morb. 2.72 [VII 110], Mul. 10 [VIII 42], 36 [VIII 84], 130 [VIII
278] *« )&), Aristophanes (Lys. 209), Theocritus (18.46), and
frequently in Euripides, who also uses it as a compound (e.g. Med. 956,
1216 [$-], Andr. 250 [$*-], Hec. 64 [ *!-], HF 943, Ion 1266, Ph.
1660, Ba. 503).
)&! can also have a speech as its object: so at Il. 4.357 ) Ρ
)& (= Od. 13.254; ‘he took it back’ i.e. retracted his speech)
and E. Hyps. 169 (TGrFS) & [] 5« $)&! #[
(‘why do you cling thus to subtle argument?’ Page, 1962b). Apollo at-
tempts here to seize Hermes both concretely with his actions as well as
metaphorically with his words, i.e. to force him to confess his theft.
Lines 314–319 451
' E : cf. 46, 150, and 253nn. for the incongruous use of
this formula.
317–318 For the idea, cf. Thgn. 851–52 χ« μ ' | )

)) <» ).
317 :3 ² 5 9 : the poet could have adapted Od. 1.56 (λ ξ
) ! λ ¹)! )*!), but /( is very important in
this Hymn; cf. 76 )(« … /(«, 108 *« … /(, 166 /(«
"7! D « $ !(, 447, 465, 511. /( occurs more often than
in any other of the Homeric Hymns, appropriately so in view of the
praised deity.
¹ ! : typically a property of Hermes; cf. 13 ¹-
)7( and Hes. Op. 78 where he endows Pandora with ¹)«
)*«. Wheedling words are a means of deception (<»), cf.
Hes. Th. 889–90 *)) φ « <7!« | ¹)! )*!.
318 K « #A! 8 : for such juxtaposition of the two gods’

names, cf. 239 (E
« E μ @).
319 :3 & picks up from 313, the construction having been inter-
rupted at 315.
'« &Ω 5 a has a proverbial ring, indi-
cating ‘a trickster meeting his match’ (Richardson). )7/«
and )(/( are generally used in epic of Odysseus (also S. Ph.
1135), often in the clausula )7/# #O!! (except at Od.
23.321 λ K (« )< *) )(/( and Theoc.
24.13 )7/« 6H ). And )1(« is sometimes combined
with )7/« in characterizations of Odysseus; cf. Antisth. Od.
fr. 15.14 Caizzi (ρ #, « Ν !φμ« (κ« λ
$
« (, ξ ξ [sc. Odysseus] 7! )1) λ
)1( λ )7/ λ ) λ * κ
T ')*), and so frequently in Eustathius. Its use for Apollo
is odd since the god has not shown any signs of )(/( thus
far; on the contrary, he is in a state of $(/(. )1(« cer-
tainly refers to Hermes (cf. 13 ¹)7(, 348 $))# Ν))(

3/ etc.). This phrase may point to other cattle-theft stories,
such as the ones involving Sisyphus and Autolycus, in which the t
452 Commentary
rickster was himself tricked and exposed; cf. Polyaen. 6.52 (quoted
above, p. 65 n. 61) and Nobili (2011, 84–90). See also above p. 106–107
n. 62.
For the juxtaposition of )1(« )7/« Matthiae 270
compared Il. 22.480 (² # 3 φ μ * 1! « * ).
Notice the effective repetition in )1(« … )7/; cf. Il.
5.613, 9.154, [Hes.] fr. 70.6, 150.22, h.Dem. 31, Pi. P. 9.6, Hdt. 5.49.5,
Democr. 65 D.-K., [A.] Pr. 83, S. El. 489, Theoc. 10.42, Call. Del. 266,
and Fehling (1969, 247).
The augmented form (i is met sometimes in the papyri; cf.
S. West (1967, 63).
320 & %«: for Hermes’ speed, cf. 22, 43–6n., 52, 50, 86, 88,
109–14, 148, 150.
3 B" occurs once more at Opp. Hal. 3.121*, where the
Scholiast glosses
«. Hermes and Apollo are obviously following
the same road towards Olympus that Hermes had taken earlier (cf. 75,
79).
<@: see 210n.
321 " , $3 ": elsewhere, whenever *! is fol-

lowed by $ , the contrast is temporal; cf. Thgn. 853 π ξ λ
*!, $ )L )@ -( ≈ 1038a, and A.R. 1.624 *!,
$ * 1! C(!. For the contrast, cf. 77–78
« *! R!, | « # R *!. Here of course
*! and *! are used in a spatial sense: Hermes leads the
way to Olympus and thus enacts his role as «; this idea is pre-
sented more clearly at 392 E
ξ π1.
μ« λ ] « ¹«: cf. 243.
322 The arrival of the praised god on Olympus is a characteristic epi-

sode in several of the Hymns; cf. 504, h.Apol. 2, 186, h.Dem. 460,
484.
" e : E, T, Lm and Pm and p offer b (,
where ( is clearly a gloss that replaced , the verse having
then been restructured to accommodate it. " is a rare word
found here for the first time; subsequently it recurs at Emp. 100.4
(W 3!/ ), Apollod.Lyr. 701.1–2 (« 9
# — 9 ( |
Lines 319–324 453
_) λ ;), in medical writers to indicate the crisis or

peak of a disease (Hp. Mul. 125 [VIII 268] κ μ _ 9
«), and as a nautical term (Gal. XIX 145 : « ξ
8« S& μ Ν
« « [‘yard-arm’] λ ¹
) [‘reefing ropes’], λ Ν ¹! 7 «
[‘whence they extend the sense of the word to mean the top of the sail’];
he then cites Hippocrates for the meaning ‘peak of disease’). It means
‘death’ at E. fr. 371. Cognates ( , 1!) are found in a
derivative sense = ‘using extreme subtlety,’ i.e. ‘hair-splitting’; e.g. Isoc.
10.4, [Dem.] 61.16, D.L. 1.17, Plu. 42e, Gal. III 291, and Ar. fr. 205.9,
where 1 was conjectured by Bergk.
"6 « O:' : the clausula occurs only at h.Dem. 331*.
@(« often describes temples (h.Dem. 355, 385, Aphr. 58, A.R. 1.307,
Theoc. 17.123, Isyll., Paean 52, p. 134 CA) or altars (h.Apol. 87, h.Aphr.
59, E. Andr. 1025–27) that are fragrant on account of the burning
frankincense. Its use with Olympus probably hints at the divine fra-
grance motif, on which see 65n.
323 &« K % : cf. h.Dem. 21, 27 K (. Zeus is

often called father (of gods and men) in a metaphorical sense; but here
is of course used literally.
μ« : cf. 397 and 504. This clausula occurs only
in this poem (also at 397 and 504); but the last two words are found
close to each other at Od. 14.263–64 = 17.432–33 A $
))« $ L« | * , ξ « Ν λ 7
. Further formulaic precedent may lie in )) 1 ( (Il.
16.85*) and :μ« )) (φ() ) (Il. 5.693*). :μ« ))
frames here and at 397 the trial scene and looks forward to the
two gods’ reconciliation.
324 )" !3 $φ « : ‘for there had
been deposited the case’s trial fee by both of them.’ This calls to mind Il.
18.507–8 ( # !!! 1 / ! ), | ) * χ«
! ( 1 F), where it is said that two talents of
gold were deposited as a trial fee, to be given to that judge who would
pronounce the most just verdict; cf. van Nortwick (1975, 45). -
may of course mean ‘deposit money’ (cf. LSJ, s.v. I 3–4), and under-
standing ) as money would contribute to the poem’s humour:
454 Commentary
Zeus’s court would be implicitly equated to a human one, since the

trial fee implies that Zeus would be dispensing justice for money like or-
dinary (human) kings or judges. However, this interpretation is not
without its problems since no trial fee is mentioned anywhere in the
text. Besides, there is only one judge whose correct judgement is beyond
any doubt. This “single judge” (cf. Cantarella 2001) is the rule in
the Homeric epics: cf. Il. 1.233–39, 2.204–206, 9.96–99, Od. 11.185–87,
11.568–71, 12.439–40; the only exception is the trial scene depicted on
the Shield of Achilles in Iliad 18. Hesiod, on the other hand, speaks of
kings who act as judges in Op. 263 etc.
This phrase calls to mind the motif of Zeus’s scales as well; cf. Il.
8.69, 16.658, and 22.209. At Il. 8.69 and 22.209 they are used to weigh
the fates of men ( λ * κ / 1! κ )α | ξ
L
()« …), though the image need not
always suggest the comparison of two individuals’ (or parties’) death;
cf. Il. 16.658 :μ« ¹ ) where it means ‘decision’; see
Janko ad loc. The motif occurs also at Archil. 91.30–31 «
,

'ξ Z(« Q[# # ρ!, 7 ] | 7

and Thgn. 157. Cf. LIMC, s.v. Achilles 799, and 259n.
(« … ) may also lead us to think of the scales of Justice,
for which cf. Bacch. 4.12 (with Maehler’s n.), A. Ag. 250–51 (with
Fraenkel’s n.), and AP 6.267.3–4 (= HE 1721–22, Diotimus: C
$φ « [‘weakly, dimly,’ hence ‘vaguely, incompletely’] | :μ«
(« ρ ) («).
325 ¹ ‘wheedling, cunning’ is Heyne’s emendation of this highly

problematic passage; see Groddeck (1786, 90) who renders however
“festivitas Olympum tenuit,’ Dii omnes laeti affluebant, gnari nempe
lepidi a iuvenili Deo commissi furti.” But this is not what ¹)(
means. ¹)(, often a quality of someone’s speech, is found in Plu-
tarch Num. 8.10, Aem. 2.2, Mor. 16b, Ael. NA 5.49, Alciphr. 3.7.3; but
¹1)«/¹1)« is common in early hexameter (cf. Od. 1.56, Hes. Th.
890, Op. 78, 374, 789, h.Herm. 13, 317, Thgn. 704). This emendation is
especially apt, given that the young god is about to make a display of his
cunning rhetoric.
The MSS offer C)( () or C)( (M), both voces nihili. Ra-
dermacher defended ’s C)(, deriving it from 1)( (‘mill’) and
comparing it to π > C( (, 1/( > C/(; he interpreted it
Lines 324, 325–326 455
as indicating abundance of food (but gods eat ambrosia for which

there is no need of a mill!); this view earned him Allen’s ironical re-
sponse (1933, 51). Humbert tentatively connected it with Ar. Eq. 10
() and Hes. Op. 530 ()*«), but the former indicates weep-
ing, the latter gnashing of teeth, both of which are inappropriate in this
context.
Scholars have proposed various conjectures, some of which are pa-
leographically wide of the MSS readings; thus Baumeister’s C( and
Schmitt’s (, both of which miss the point (is there ever bad
weather on Olympus?); !)( (D’Orville), though somewhat closer
to the MSS is also unsatisfactory: what we are about to witness is not
‘chatter’ or ‘wordiness’ but, at least in the case of Hermes, articulated
rhetoric. Hermann’s )( also misses the mark: the gods are about
to witness a trial, not to attend festivities (note Hermann’s explanation
of his proposal: “quod de saltatione et choreis accipiatur”). Allen’s
C)( (company, talk) is too general, as Càssola remarks. Càssola
himself conjectured !)))7 (“un gran parlare”), a word mentioned
in CGlL II 441.24; !))) occurs in ecclesiastic writers; cf. Eust. Il.
p. 1297 (IV 717) !(! ξ μ Ρ« C λ $1 -/
)(φ, ³« #O!!) λ (!7 , $))# 4)« λ
!@φ « ² C
« - !)))»«, p « , Ρ «
$)« . West (2003b, 150) proposed C/( and Führer
(2004) Cφ !1(. Both conjectures evoke the atmosphere of a sym-
posium, which is not the case here, since the gods are gathering in early
morning in order to attend a trial.
325–326 $" ξ | Νφ" : there is no need to emend Νφ to

$ * with Groddeck (1786, 89), even though is some-
times preceded by $ * or $))« (Il. 23.233, Od. 2.392, 3.412,
11.228, 24.468, Cleon 340.1 SH). $ is a substantive (= gods),
and the combination with Νφ is paralleled by (μ " * or
(! " ! (e.g. Od. 3.3, 7.210, 12.386, 16.212, Hes. Th. 223), as
Gemoll already pointed out. We may also compare " μ Ν at
354 and 565.
For Νφ« used of gods, cf. Hes. Th. 389, 397 L< Νφ«, Pi. P.
4.33 f|*/ « $φ #E!, 4.291 )! ξ ZL« Νφ«
T»«, E. Andr. 1256 $ Νφ* 7! *, Ar. Av.
702 « Νφ.
456 Commentary
3 5" #H-: i.e. in the morning. does not indicate

rank, but simply temporal sequence. M, D, L, P, p offer λ /«
(or 1/«) OC)1, which unnecessarily repeats Olympus from
322 and 325. Besides, the gods are already on Olympus, and it is said
that their palaces were located ‘in the folds of Olympus’ (cf. Il. 11.75–77
¹ # Ν)) Κ !φ ! , $)) Q () | !φ! λ !
7, x/ ' !) | @ ) 1/«
OC)1 [the only other occurrence of this clausula]). We cannot,
however, exclude the possibility that λ 1/« OC)1 was a
genuine rhapsodic, performative, variant; on these, see 563n.
5" « frequently describes female deities in archaic poetry
(Hera: Il. 1.611, 14.153, 15.5, h.Apol. 305, h.Hom. 12.1, Pi. N. 1.37;
Artemis: Il. 9.533, Od. 5.123). It is applied to Eos only in the Odyssey
(10.541 = 12.142 = 15.56 = 20.91, 14.502, 15.250, 19.319, 22.198,
23.243–44, 23.347) and h.Aphr. (218 and 226); cf. Pi. P. 4.260 (Cyrene),
fr. 346b.4 (Demeter), fr. adesp. 953.1 PMG (Muse). Cf. )* ()
(Aphrodite) at Sapph. 1.1.
This compound can be interpreted as ‘golden-throned’ (< ²
*«) or ‘with golden flowers embroidered on her clothing’ (<
*; cf. Il. 22.441 (8φ) ) φ (, ξ *
)# 3!!); cf. Wartelle (2000, 211–13). Escher’s (1905, 2658) view
that / !* « and 1 « suggest a prehistoric cult of Eos is
contested by Weiss at LIMC III.1 p. 748 (s.v. Eos).
The gathering of the Olympians after the arrival of Dawn has
Homeric precedents: Od. 5.1–3 #HΩ« # )/ # $
T | c #, b# $! φ*« φ ξ " !α | ¹ ξ
λ * & …; cf. Il. 1.497 and 533; and Od. 1.26–27 ¹
ξ κ Ν)) | Z(μ« λ ! #O) $ * _! for the
gathering of the gods. Here it is expressed in a somewhat untraditional
way (although the formula / !* #H is used). Interestingly,
the gods will remain in the background throughout this entire scene,
and we will not hear of any god’s reaction (besides Zeus’s).
327 E« λ $! 8 « #A% : cf. 318n.
327–328 0 … | " μ« ! ' % : sitting in front of (and

touching) one’s knees is typical in a supplication scene; cf. Il. 1.500–501
W # C &, λ )" 1 | ! 9
; 10.454–55,
Lines 326–330 457
21.64–73, Kirk on Il. 1.512–13, and Gould (1973). Here, however,

Apollo and Hermes are standing in front of Zeus’s knees which implies
that his throne must be elevated and adds to the comic effect since both
Hermes (an infant) and Apollo (an adult) seem to come up to the same
level. Are we perhaps to think of large cult-statues such as Zeus’s
chryselephantine statue at Olympia?
328b–332 Zeus’s question

328b ² # $ : $ is found in this sedes at Il. 21.508 (Zeus
πL )!« asks Artemis who had just been maltreated by Hera) and
Od. 7.21 (Odysseus asks a girl [= Athena in disguise] for directions to
Alcinous’ palace). Our poet, however, combines it with another speech-
introduction formula (329 μ« 3).
φ ¹ usually applies to human sons (Il. 6.144*, 17.288*,
21.97*, 21.152*, Od. 2.386*, 3.189*, 14.164*, 15.2*, 16.308*, 16.395
[=18.413], 19.31*, 19.368*, 22.141*, 24.243*, 24.526*). It refers to di-
vine offspring at Hes. Th. 940* (Dionysus), [Hes.] fr. 343.1* (Hephaes-
tus); cf. φ at Hes. Th. 453* (the offspring of Cronus and
Rheia).
329 Z4« DB<« is always found in enjambment in this sedes; cf.

Il. 1.354, 12.68, 14.54, 16.121, Od. 5.4, 23.331, Hes. Th. 601, Op. 8,
[Hes.] fr. 204.97; cf. Ar. Lys. 773 (a mock-oracle).
μ« " 0 is traditional (cf. 300n.), but it is gene-
rally not combined with any other expression indicating speaking else-
where (cf. 328 $ ).
330 C(): cf. Od. 13.273* (in Odysseus’ false tale to
Athena) and Opp. Hal. 5.374. Its combination with )1« here sug-
gests that )(U = booty in the form of cattle (cf. Il. 11.677–78 )(U #
!)!! -) ))κ | 7 " $)«).
7« (‘pleasing to one’s heart’) often refers to food and/or
drink; cf. Il. 9.90 (), 9.227, Od. 5.166 (!, 8 , ρ), 5.267
(R5), 6.76 (7), 9.158 (7 (), 13.409 (")), 20.391 (-
); cf. A.R. 2.495, Opp. Hal. 2.567.
Zeus’s question is especially pointed since it is Hermes who leads
Apollo to Olympus (cf. 320–21), and Hermes’ crime is precisely that he
458 Commentary
stole cattle. With )(U() Zeus essentially attributes theft to

Apollo who is about to complain of Hermes’ stealing his cattle; cf.
Heiden (2010, 420).
331 ) !!-: see 271n.

φκ « 05 : ‘having the appearance of a herald.’ In
Homer and Hesiod φ7, often in the accusative with adverbial sense
(cf. Il. 1.115, 2.58, Od. 5.212, 6.16, 6.152, 7.210, 8.134, Hes. Th. 259,
355, Op. 129, [Hes.] Sc. 88, h.Apol. 465, h.Herm. 31, h.Aphr. 201) refers
to someone’s appearance or stature and is distinguished from mental
abilities; cf. Il. 1.114–15 (Κ ' ! / , | C « Cξ φ7,
Κ# Ν φ «), 3.208 (φκ ( λ 7 ), Hes. Op. 129
(Κ φκ ) Κ *(), [Hes.] Sc. 88. (The comment in
LSJ, s.v. φ˘7 that φ7 is always used of the human form in Homer and
Hesiod is misleading: at Il. 2.58 Oneiros’ φ7 is compared to Nestor’s,
at Od. 5.212 Calypso compares her own stature to Penelope’s, and at
Od. 6.152 Odysseus likens Nausicaa’s stature to that of Artemis.) φ7
designates innate abilities in post-Homeric poetry, especially in Pindar
(e.g. O. 2.56, 9.100, P. 8.44, N. 7.54); cf. Cratin. 236.2 Cξ φκ
)1 with Kassel-Austin’s n.
As φ7 may refer to someone’s nature, one might suppose that
φκ 7 « 3/ anticipates Hermes’ role as the herald and may
thus be another proleptic characterization (cf. AS ad loc. who compare
with *)« of 314). But the young god has enacted some of the
keryx’s function during his dais at the Alpheios, as Zeus certainly
knows, and this could suggest to him that Hermes has the natural pro-
perties of a keryx (see 115–41n., at the end).
Càssola ad loc. remarks that Hermes has now only the appearance
of the keryx but will later receive the caduceus as well. But we should
not ignore that Hermes’ appearance as an infant wrapped in his swad-
dling-clothes certainly does not resemble that of a keryx. This is then
yet another of the poet’s jokes.
332 ) ‘serious, weighty’ occurs first here and subsequently at

Thgn. 64–65 (/
… !), 70, 116, 642, 644, 1374, etc.; how-
ever, !7 is found in Homer. Though called a /
… !-
, Hermes’ performance will show that this affair is partly )
as well.
Lines 330–332, 333–365 459
5 does not appear in the Iliad, while we only find the plural in
the Odyssey (= ‘goods, property’ e.g. 2.78, 2.203, 13.203, 14.286, 14.385
etc.; cf. h.Apol. 397 λ
< λ / 7 … 3) and h.Herm.
400 with n.). The singular is first found at Hes. Op. 344 (/
… Ν))
‘misfortune’), 402, and 686 (= property).
For ) … 5, cf. !
at Thgn. 70, 116,
Hdt. 1.8.1, 1.133.3 ( !! (). Hermes’ ar-
rival on Olympus is a ‘weighty’ matter, since a new god is being intro-
duced on Olympus. At the same time this phrase is humorous since this
new god is an infant rascal who has stolen his (half-)brother’s property
and is brought to a tribunal. ! /
may also refer to the
legal case that has been brought to the gods’ attention, i.e. a case of
theft in the ‘family.’
"- "# ²! : see 5n.
333–365 Apollo’s speech

These lines summarize the events that transpired at 254–77. The main
body of the speech is preceded by a two-line introduction (334–35 ‘you
are about to hear an important story’) that is particularized to the
speaker (‘I am not the only greedy god’). Apollo’s reconstruction of the
events shows that there are parts of Hermes’ stratagem that he still does
not understand (e.g. the marvellous sandals at 346–49) and perhaps
never grasps. He emphasizes the strange footprints (342–49), mentions
his encounter with the Old Man, but not the interesting piece of in-
formation the man gave him, i.e. that the cows were walking backwards.
Apollo concludes his speech by quoting some of Hermes’ words with-
out giving any details about his search of Maia’s cave or Hermes’ oath
and frivolous omens.
Apollo’s account does not follow the strict chronological sequence:
from the discovery of the cattle-theft, we pass to the description of the
strange tracks that lead to Pylos, and only then are we told of the Old
Man (as an afterthought, to explain how he knew of Hermes’ desti-
nation). The reason for this change of sequence may be sought in Apol-
lo’s confusion and anger. Contrast with Hermes’ well-organized speech
(on which see below). There is heavy repetition: 335 ~ 338
; 342 ~ 349 ) ; 342 CL P1)# ) ~ 355
« P1) CL« ); 347 ~ 350 5@ / , 352
460 Commentary
5; 352 !" ~ 353 !"«. The speech lacks a conclusion and
breaks off abruptly. It might be thought appropriate that the god of rhe-
toric, Hermes, delivers a speech that is more artfully arranged than Apol-
lo’s, but we also need to bear in mind that Hermes is an infant (hence by
definition unable to speak); this makes Apollo look even worse.
333 μ # σ : an extremely common speech introduc-

tion in Homer (42x in the Iliad, 57x in the Odyssey, counting both the
masculine and feminine form), which is found only here and at h.Dem.
224 in the Hymns.
334 N 5: cf. 157.

" … : $ : $)*« (‘feeble’) regularly refers to
military strength (Il. 4.330) and is often combined with !« (Il.
5.783, 7.257, 8.463, Od. 18.373, Hes. Op. 437). It is nowhere else found
as an attribute of speech; however, this phrase is not as bold as Rader-
macher ad loc. thought since *« (‘strong’, ‘harsh’) may modify
« (Il. 1.25 = 326 = 379 = 16.199, 15.202).
Apollo enters Olympus arguing with an infant, which causes Zeus’s
ironic comment (! /
); contrary to Hermes’ appearance
as a weak infant, his deeds which Apollo is about to recount are not
feeble.
335 % : see 56n.

³« ρ « &!Ω φ « +: this answers 330 )(U and
suggests that Zeus might have accused Apollo of greed in the past. The
greed of the Delphic oracle was notorious; cf. Ν /) d"« C
1 (Aesop. Proverb 180, p. 290 Perry); cf. 494, 549; further
Kurke (2010, 55–57). At any rate, it appears that Hermes is not the only
one interested in others’ cattle.
*φ « is formed by analogy with ))7« that derives from
)7 ‘crops’ (cf. h.Herm. 151 ))7, Il. 5.613); but following
)(U )1« it should be interpreted here as deriving from )(U«
‘booty, spoils,’ often in the form of cattle.
336–339 ‘I found some boy, this one here, a downright plunderer in the
mountains of Cyllene, having covered a great distance – a mocker like
none other I’ve seen among gods or men who as thieves roam on earth.’
Lines 333–365, 333–337 461
Apollo’s words with their hyperbaton and initial vagueness remind us

of the confused reply of the Old Man at 208.
336 ) is derogatory (‘some boy’). The vagueness of

gives way to deictic . Notice that neither Apollo nor Hermes
refer to each other with their proper names (or any periphrasis invol-
ving the patronymic or matronymic).
' literally means ‘piercing,’ ‘loud’ and is used predomi-
nately of sounds; cf. Il. 8.227 = 11.275 = 11.586 = 12.439 = 13.149
= 17.247 -! ξ 1! :! @«, h.Aphr. 19
1! # S)), 80 1! &, S. OC 1479 (lyr.)
1!« R"«, E. Hel. 1308–1309 (lyr.) 1! ),
A.R. 1.1272
) 1! )9 ( "! $9
; further, Opp.
Hal. 5.300, C. 4.178. For its meaning here (‘openly, downright’), cf.
D.L. 2.143 1! … *). From the literal/local (a piercing
sound that can reach far), its sense was extended to mean ‘a thief who
can reach anywhere’; cf. Il. 17.748 @ … 1! -
/( @« (‘a hill piercing into the plain’ as it were) and LfgrE, s.v. B 3
where it is suggested that 1!« may have local sense here (= “wer
sich überallhin einschleicht,” he who creeps everywhere). Whatever the
derivation of 1!« (from *, with Aeolic vocalism, or from
; cf. Frisk and Beekes, s.v.) the choice of this adjective is apt,
since Hermes is associated with the crossing of boundaries and pene-
trating; cf. $ 7! 178, $ 283.
= occurs only here, but U& (‘slay, ravage, plunder’)
is found in archaic poetry (Il. 2.861, 5.557, 16.752 [the last two of
lions], 16.830, 21.129, 22.63, 24.245, Od. 8.516, [Hes.] fr. 43a.62, Pi. P.
9.21, fr. 93.1) and later (e.g. Hdt. 1.88.2, 1.159.3, 2.121"1, 7.125 [a
lion], 8.86, 8.91 [the last two refer to sinking ships], E. Alc. 886, Call.
Cer. 49 [ U&«], [Theoc.] 25.202 [the Nemean lion], Opp. C.
2.274, 4.176).
In the margin of L and P 1! =!7 is glossed -
φ μ )( (i.e. a manifest thief). But curiously, Hsch. 2238
offers =!·
· ) and at 2239 =!7«·
7(«· 4)1«· ρ« Rφ«· ² 3/.
337 K « & 2: = [Hes.] fr. 170.1* (= Titanomachia fr. 10

Davies) K))7(« R !! 7 /# E
.
462 Commentary
4 3 5- $ '« may be modelled on Hes. Op. 635

)L * $1!!«, possibly a ‘parallel of sound’; cf. 108n.
For 1, cf. h.Dem. 380 Wφ ξ ) 7!,
h.Apol. 108 /« ξ 7! » μ !(1 (of Iris). For Hermes’
covering a long distance, cf. 95–96.
338 : Homer has *« in the phrase « !!

(sometimes !! is not expressed): Il. 1.539, 4.6, 5.419, Od. 9.474,
20.177, 24.240), but « is found at Hes. Op. 788 "&
(followed by 51 # ¹)« )*«), Hdt. 5.83.3 / ! -
(! *!, E. Alc. 1125 « / (glossed as ‘delus-
ive’ by Dale who compares E. Hel. 619, IA 849), fr. 492.2 / «
*«. For the semantics of «/ , see 56n.
: Ν 2%: cf. 276 7 # Ν)) R, 310* C#
Ν)) R.
339 :# $ - comes somewhat unexpectedly after , since one
would not expect the god of prophecy to be deceived by a human
(though cf. the stories of Cassandra and Coronis); besides, he has
already recognized that the cattle-thief is a god (214, 343). This detail
may aim at further indicating Apollo’s ineptitude in this poem.
*< : ‘escaping the notice of men,’ hence ‘thieves.’ This is a
kenning, just as Hesiod’s π * « $7 (Op. 605 with West’s n.).
For its formation, cf. φ!" « (Il. 13.339, Od. 22.297, A.R.
3.1357), 5" « (Od. 12.269 = 12.274, h.Apol. 411, Bacch.
13.39), !" « (Pi. O. 9.79), " « (Pi. P. 6.30, I. 8.53),
$)<" « (Pi. P. 5.91, N. 8.30), )<" « (Bacch. 5.175), the
proper names A(!" *, K)(!" *, T!" * in Alcm.
1.73, 4.1.9, and 5.2.col. i 16, and 21 respectively (the latter a commen-
tary on Alcman), and Knecht (1946, 38).
Fick (1896, 271) derived it from )97&! ()(U&!) ‘he who robs
men’ and proposed writing )9 (!" ; but this is not necessary:
)(!" « is an equivalent to Hsch. " 1205 " *φ()«α $ @-
« φ(), ! $ (a point already made by Ruhnken).
+# &λ !) : for λ without a verb of motion, cf. Od.
4.417*, 17.386 (# $ ), Hes. Op. 11–12 ($))# λ |
!λ 1). Od. 7.332–33 λ & Ν | Ν!"!-
)« F( suggests that a form of motion may be implied, which
Lines 337–343 463
would justify the accusative (his reputation will be eternal and hence
travel over earth); cf. LSJ s.v. C I 2.
This verse may be influenced by Od. 10.191 C# Ρ9 ( )«
φ!" « ρ!# Kμ .
340 B« # & - « &3« < «: cf. 72 )« $ ( !«

1«, i.e. from the $!φ)μ« )@ where the gods keep their
cattle.
341 J «: cf. 18.

3 ") φ < "« is formulaic; cf. Il. 1.34*,
9.182*, Od. 13.220*, where the subject is praying or lamenting. For
Hermes’ journey by the sea, cf. 79 (λ 5« 4)9
(!).
342 :"4 P' # &% : ‘driving them straight to Pylos’; cf. 216 and
355. Adverbial C1 does not occur in Homer, who has 1« instead,
e.g. Il. 11.289 $))# L« )1 @/« b« and LfgrE, s.v. Ῠ «,
1 2". But cf. [Hes.] fr. 43a.61–63 :μ« Ν) « ¹μ« | 3
¹ * *), [ ]< ξ « | CL[« ]λ T (
$[)], where it means ‘immediately when.’
C* # in may have been influenced by #A)φ * of
398.
342b–349: cf. 219–26.
342–343 ‘and the footprints were of two kinds, monstrous, such as to

cause amazement, and the deeds of a mighty god.’
342 ‘of two kinds,’ i.e. the cows’ confusing tracks described at
344–45 and Hermes’ own footprints discussed at 346–49. Hence Barnes’
is no improvement.
%: the footprints are termed ) also at 225 and 349.
343 U # $!": words denoting wonderment (usually related

to or "«) are typically found in contexts where a god’s di-
vinity is recognized (in an epiphany scene or through the god’s deeds);
cf. 219, Pfister (1924, 317), D. Bremer (1975, 2 n. 2), Turkeltaub (2003,
31–32), and Jaillard (2007, 83).
464 Commentary
λ $! « 0!: This is a reflection of the divine foot-

print motif; cf. Il. 13.68–75, where Poseidon’s divinity is recognized
from his F/ … ξ ( and Sowa (1984, 247–50). Cf.
the Satyrs’ words in S. Ichn. 103 ![]· *« « κ $[ ]
Ν
(reacting to the sight of the cows’ tracks).
$!« almost always describes mortals in Homer, mainly kings or
heroes, but also other types of people (e.g. Il. 3.268 [ 7 «], 5.277
[Tydeus], 7.386 [Trojans], 19.281 [ «], Od. 2.209 [(!
«],
13.71 [
«]). It is used of deities at Od. 11.226, 11.635, [Hes.] fr.
280.12, h.Dem. 348 (Persephone), Hes. Th. 461 (OC «), 632
(Titans).
Blanc (2002, 174–76) suggests that $*« is a compound from
$- (*m· gh2-) and -*«
3 ‘he who shouts loud.’ This interpretation con-
forms with the epithet’s application to heralds and warriors, for some of
whom the formula "κ $*« is sometimes used; but it remains ob-
scure how its meaning was extended to become an attribute of the gods.
Be that as it may, Hermes does not look like an $μ« in the
poem, though he is called a again at 138 and 551.
344–345 ‘For in the case of the cows the dark soil kept revealing oppo-
site tracks [i.e. pointing to the opposite direction] (leading) into the
meadow of asphodel.’
344 9 ξ !3 < : ‘in the case of the cows, as far as the cows
were concerned.’ This (ethical) dative is loosely connected to the rest of
the sentence; it is not to be taken with $. Cf. the loosely connected
$φλ ξ
« (‘as for honour’) at 173.
&« $φ μ - : see 221n.
345 $ : ‘opposite’ to the wondrous tracks left by Hermes’ sandals.

LSJ s.v. $« take $ with « $!φ)μ ) (instead of the
frequently found dative or genitive).
<(): cf. 222n.
05 … $ φ : ‘kept revealing’; cf. LSJ s.v. 3/ B IV 2. 3/-
! sets up a contrast between the abundant traces here and the lack of
them at 352ff.
« … : cf. 140n. *« has a short at Il. 18.23 (')Ω
*˘ )*!!), but the vowel is long at A. Supp. 180 and 783 (lyr.)
Lines 343–346 465
346 :μ« # a «: ‘this very person, this one here’; for the combi-
nation of pronouns, cf. 336n. Apollo once again refrains from using
Hermes’ proper name. For the combination of C*« with a demon-
strative, see LSJ s.v. I 7.
Ν «: ‘indescribable.’ The MSS have «. Ρ() cannot
follow C*« and i«, and the most plausible assumption is that an
adjective accompanying $7/« has been corrupted; alternatively, the
corrupted word may have been a noun qualified by $7/«. Ν) «
is close to the MSS’ « and yields acceptable sense (‘this one here,
an indescribable fellow who cannot be dealt with …’).15 Ν) « is at-
tested at Hp. Ep. 13 (IX 334 Ν) « « π ! $-
@ sc. towards Democritus), Pherecr. 168.2 (Ν Ν) #) etc.
For the two adjacent adjectives compound with $- privative, cf. 80n.
Various emendations have been proposed: Ludwich suggested
i« ² )*« (1889, 170; no explanation given). He also proposed
i« ²« (1887, 700): but ²« is corrected to Ρ«; see Phot.
Lex. II p. 2 Naber; at any rate, ²« would refer to Hermes as the
protector of travelers, which is irrelevant in this passage. Otherwise, it
means merchandise or supplies in early epic; cf. LfgrE, s.v. ². In his
edition, finally, Ludwich offered σ « comparing σ « #A/
(= ‘guardian’) at Il. 8.80 and Od. 15.89. Radermacher conjectured
Ρ « (sic) which he took to mean ²(*«; but S &, the only
word similar to this, has no connection to ²μ Ν (cf. LSJ, s.v.
S & ‘bite, gnaw’). AHS suggested Ν «, relying on two Hesy-
chian glosses 1053 Ν α Ν! (but in Latte’s apparatus criti-
cus we read: $ expl. w [= Vindobonensis 171] rectius) and
1453 Ν&α !* ),16 but Ν « does not mean ‘unbeliev-
able’ (cf. LSJ s.v.). Edmonds (1937, 50) proposed ² # *« with pro-
delision, for which there is no support in Homer. Càssola printed Her-
mann’s Ν «: this is found only in Hsch. 1927 Ν «α $ *!«
and perhaps at Hp. Vict. 1.10 (= VI 486; … Ν λ R5 λ
51!), where LSJ s.v. Ν « suggest reading Ν here. (R. Joly
prints in fact Ν , which was suggested by Bernays; cf. the Latin
rendering in P intractabilem.) At any rate, Ν does not yield satis-
15 Cf. O. Thomas (2009, 210) who offers $ *«, Ν) «, Ν «, ² *«, ²«,
and ²(*« as possible solutions here.
16 Thus Latte; Ν! H.
466 Commentary
factory sense here: Hermes was not unapproachable (he even met a
mortal) but confused Apollo with his tracks so that the latter did not
know how to describe them properly (cf. 222–26).
$5 «: cf. 257n. Apollo confesses his inability to do anything
against Hermes’ stratagem. See R. P. Martin (1983, 23–24) who rightly
connects Hermes’ quality as $7/« (‘unable to be dealt with’) with
his
« (348).
346b–347 Κ# Ν λ | Κ# Ν 5 : generally Ν accom-

panies one of the alternatives in a series of negative clauses (e.g. Il.
1.115, 5.333, 5.532, 12.53, 13.284, 23.632–33, 24.40, Od. 4.264, 4.566,
4.605, 9.122), though we do find double Ν as here (e.g. Il. 5.89–90,
6.352, 20.205).
Just as at 222–24n., Apollo’s bafflement is verbalized through a de-
scription that moves from what one could reasonably expect (walking
on one’s feet) to something absurd (walking on one’s hands).
3 B"6 5- : cf. 75n.
348 ‘But having some other device, he was drawing furrows, such mon-
strous ones, as if one who was walking on slender logs.’
$# Ν 3 : Apollo acknowledges Hermes’ metis, a
quality noted several times in the poem; cf. 13 ¹)7(, 154 and
514 )
, 319 )1(«, and 405 )
.
< ": normally - - in " make position in
Homer; cf. Il. 4.42, 19.150, Od. 2.204, 2.265, 2.404, 20.341.
" ) is not memely a synonym for () 7!!
) (which the poet could have used here); " should be
understood in its primary sense (‘rub hard’), as Gemoll already sug-
gested: it refers to Hermes’ ‘furrowing’ strange tracks on the sand
through his sandals.
349 ) %(): cf. 344.

$9 : i.e. slender pieces of wood or trees; see White (2002,
328). These need not be oaks; cf. A Il. 11.86 ( ) ¹
)λ $μ $ / » ) and Hsch. 2438.
AS/AHS’s ‘young trees’ or Càssola’s “come uno che camminasse su
arbusti” (= ‘as one who was walking on bushes’) are not quite to the
point.
Lines 346–352 467
As we know (but Apollo curiously does not) Hermes had used

branches of myrtle and tamarisk to construct his sandals that pro-
duced these strange tracks. The effect of tying these branches was to
create footprints that were too large to match those of any known
(mythological) creature; cf. Apollo’s exclamation at 220–42. In doing
this, Hermes manages to mask his infant tracks as something larger
than himself.
350 2φ ξ σ is usually answered by *φ (), e.g Il. 9.550–51,

h.Dem. 33–37 (where see Richardson’s n. on ξ σ), and Call. Hec.
18.1 Hollis. For the omission of the *φ -clause, cf. [Hes.] fr. 35.2.
&% is here a synonym of )1 (‘while he was driving [the
cattle] through the sandy region’). @ means ‘keep in flight or mo-
tion after having begun it, keep after, keep going’; it indicates the fulfill-
ment of the action and usually has durative aspect; see Moorhouse
(1952, esp. 16).
3 B"6 5- : cf. 75n.
351 G) : sometimes describes the ease with which a god accom-
plishes what he/she wishes, and is often followed by a comparison; cf.
Il. 3.381–82 (μ # <7 <# #Aφ ( | W )# —« *« …),
15.362–63 (Apollo is leading the Trojan attack, holding the aegis; 3 -
ξ /« #A/ | W )#, ³« Ρ « 5 «),
20.443–44 (μ # <7 < #A*)) | W )# —« *«),
h.Herm. 416–17 ([(« # « ¹μ | W )# 7
' ("*), ³« 3)# C*«). In Hesiod this phrase is not followed by a
comparative clause; cf. Th. 418–19, Op. 762, [Hes.] fr. 23a.21–22.
;5 : see 76n.
‘were conspicuous,’ occurs first here and subsequently at
Pi. O. 1.2, A. Pers. 1007, E. Alc. 642 etc.
& 9 has good Homeric parallels, but is used almost exclus-
ively in the context of wounded warriors (e.g. Il. 13.548*, 15.434*,
17.315, Od. 18.98, 18.398*; cf. [Hes.] Sc. 365, Tyrt. 11.19*; at Il. 18.26 it
is used of Achilles mourning). In the Odyssey the phrase appears twice
in a domestic context, of the ashes by the hearth (7.153 = 7.160).
352 ‘But when he had passed beyond the long sandy path …’
:3 &: for C following an Rφ /*φ clause, cf.
468 Commentary
Od. 15.361–66, [Orph.] L. 151–54; instead of C , a clause in-

troduced by $))# Ρ 7 may follow; cf. Il. 9.550–53, [Hes.] fr. 35.2–4.
< ‘path’ occurs first here and subsequently at Hdt. 4.122.2,
5.102.2, A. Ag. 411, Cho. 205, 210, 228, [A.] Pr. 679, S. Ant. 773, Ph. 29,
E. Ion 743, Ph. 92, Or. 1274 etc.; see Lolos (2003, 152).
Matthiae 274, emended to " (and printed τ "
« [sic] at 373) to avoid the repetition of !"« with different mean-
ing in the next line. However, repetition is characteristic of Apollo’s
speech; see 344–65n.
&8 occurs in this sedes in Homer of a weapon woun-
ding a warrior; cf. Il. 13.651–52, 16.346–47, Od. 10.162–63.
!" < (! may have been influenced by Od. 7.35 )#
*! 9.323 D # ) ).
353 Νφ «: ‘imperceptible, difficult to discern,’ not ‘unutterable’ or

‘unthought-of,’ the sense we met at 80. As Hermes walks now on firm
ground, he leaves no tracks that Apollo could discern.
< «: ‘tracks, footsteps’; cf. LSJ s.v. II.
354 5- $ 3 : ‘over the hard ground.’ *« is used

only here as an attribute of the ground; cf. Od. 23.46
σ« (with Apoll.Soph. p. 103.28 Bekker, Hsch. 3992, Et.Gud. col.
343.47–48 Sturz). Homer has / $# K)7() at line-beginning
(cf. Il. 10.362, Od. 14.2).
μ # &φ < μ« $ : cf. 87 μ ξ *(!. With
" μ« $7 cf. 325–26 $ Νφ.
Apollo’s encounter with the Old Man occurred before he examined
the cows’ and Hermes’ footprints; he mentioned Pylos already at 342
and adds this detail about the Old Man as if he feels the need to name
his source. However, the Old Man did not actually indicate that Hermes
was leading the cattle to Pylos. Since Apollo runs towards Pylos im-
mediately after he receives the bird omen at 213–14 (which Apollo omits
in his speech), we may surmise that he found out about the location of
his cattle from this omen as well (unless the Old Man pointed with a ges-
ture towards the direction Hermes and the cows were walking).
Note the etymological wordplay between Νφ !« (353) and
φ !! (354): Apollo could not discern Hermes’ footprints, but a
mortal perceived the divine child.
Lines 352–357 469
355 &« P' :"4« &- : cf. 342 CL P1)# ), 14 )

".
) is a poetic present form for )1; cf. 342 ) and
LSJ s.v. )1.
:"'« does not appear in Homer; it is found at [Hes.] fr. 43a.63
(suppl.; adverb), Pi. O. 8.41, 13.82.
< - ! « :6% : cf. 102.
356–357 ‘But after he shut them in a quiet and remote place, then he
quickly accomplished his tricks on both sides of the road …’
:3 &λ : cf. 352.
3« … : cf. Denniston, GP 374. (instead of ) answers
« , the point being addition instead of contrast.
& π59: ‘in solitude, in a quiet and sequestered place’; cf. LSJ s.v.
π!/ II who cite X. Mem. 2.1.21 ([Heracles] <)* « π!/

! $ ² (). π!/9 ( ap-
pears elsewhere in archaic poetry at Sol. 4.10 and Thgn. 48 (both end of
pentameter, = ‘in peace and quiet’ i.e. without !!«); cf. E. Or. 1283
(lyr.) ))# ¹ # ρ π!/) | !φ φ!!.
8 : ‘shut them in’ ( - , Ion., Att.
, ) is p’s reading, preferable to M’s and [’s
< (= ‘pat, stroke,’ found in the formulaic verse /
< 3*« # 3φ# 3 # S*&); for the sense, cf. Od. 10.238
!φ! and E. Ba. 618. The confusion in the MSS may
have arisen through the false association with W& ‘sacrifice.’ Either
sense would not do here: it is only at 405–408 that Apollo realizes that
two of his cows were killed.
357 * ‘accomplished his tricks quickly’ is Ilgen’s

rearticulation of M’s )(!. )» is a hapax
legomenon, but )« is found at Pi. O. 10.80 ( )
")« of Zeus’s thunderbolt); cf. Phot. 477 (= II p. 124 Naber) -
)(: ² /« λ )@« F! (≈ Paus.Gr.
46), Suet. λ ")!φ( p. 420 (Miller) )(«α ² -
«α < i λ )»!, μ / (‘using fraudulent
arts’) λ ¹λ μ« « Q (‘as if going
through fire for the sake of their wickedness’), Hsch. 4451 -
)(«α )« 3) L« /« (/»! -
470 Commentary
« λ L« )« μ _«. For its formation and meaning,
see Stolz (1903, 251–53): on the basis of Il. 20.371–72 ( λ λ / «
3 ), Stolz explains )(« as “Flammenhand” (< +
)(), which in his view implies that the primary meaning must have
been ‘swift’ and ‘destructive’ (cf. Phot. and Hsch.; battle is sometimes
compared to fire, e.g. Il. 18.1 γ« ¹ ξ μ« «
and 17.736–37 *)« … | Ν « 1 ). At a later
stage, through the influence of )»! it acquired the sense found
in Hsch. L« /« (/»! «; this led to the
meaning L« )« μ _«; cf. Eust. Il. II 5 (p. 513): λ π -
)( λ μ )»!, o π ξ Ν
!(, μ ξ $λ / F)( λ s μ«
9
/). The force of - is ‘completely, throughout.’ A
folk-tale motif may lie behind )(« and () )»; cf.
Thompson, Motif-Index F.683.1 (‘sparks come from man’s hands’).
² μ ξ 0 ", μ # 0 ": ‘both this side and that side of the
road,’ i.e. in both directions; cf. 226 ξ 3 ², #
* 3 ².
358–359 A tricolon decrescens ( ) ) )9( λ

@« ~ Ν )
* ~ &*φ). For the emphasis on dark-
ness in Hermes’ cave, cf. 6 )! and 229 (« «
"1! .
358 & ) % : cf. 254 χ« ) ) .

9 λ & 6«: cf. 290 )(« μ« ' ; with this
Apollo evokes Hermes’ concealment and stealth. Gemoll suggested
that this is a parodistic echo of Il. 1.47 where Apollo λ @« ap-
proaches the Greek camp, intending to attack them with his bow and
arrows; cf. Od. 11.606 where ² # 9
λ @« (semantically
equivalent to )9 ( . .) is used of Heracles, whose ghost, bow in
hand, roams in the Underworld.
359 Ν )
% & : cf. 172 and 234nn.
3 @φ : cf. 257n.
359–360a : :μ | +μ« >84 % &B elaborates on

the preceding )9
( … &*φ, but is somewhat odd, as
Lines 357–361 471
one would not expect a keen-sighted eagle to spot its prey inside a cave;
this too shows Apollo’s confusion at this point. The hunting image of
350–53, where Apollo follows the cows’ (and Hermes’) tracks, is re-
sumed here.
On the sharp eyesight of the eagle, cf. Il. 17.674–75 !
—« # *«, Ρ W φ! | S<1 ! K-
(, Arist. HA 620a2, Ael. NA 1.42, Luc. Icar. 14
(S<!«), Hor. S. 1.3.26–27. D’Arcy Thompson (1895, 6) in-
forms us that the eagle’s gall mixed with honey was used as an ointment
for the eyes.
% has been glossed between the lines as ") in two MSS;
it is varia lectio at Il. 13.344 χ« * (7! Ω * C#
$ /
=
in P.Oxy. IV 769, 906 M–P3 (The papyrus reads (7!]
) α [). For this verb, cf. Hsch. ) 80 )α ! , ") (cf. ) 472),
Russo on Od. 19.229–30, and Leumann, HW 233–36 who explains it as
a present falsely formed from the perfect ))( (cf. Il. 22.141 a hawk
S<L ))( @«), which was later associated with the sharp-sightedness of
these birds.
McCail (1970) emends the unmetrical R C ) at AP
5.237.5 (Agathias Scholasticus) to S<<>L ) and sees there a ref-
erence to h.Herm.
360b–362 ‘and many times did he wipe his eyes with his hands, as he
was preparing his crafty tricks. For instance, he was bluntly proclaim-
ing the following words …’
361 :!« = ‘eyes’ occurs first here, but this sense is frequent in tragedy
where it is sometimes cupled with R; cf. S. Aj. 69–70 (S
$! *φ« | C«), E. Andr. 1180 (lyr.), HF 133 (S C,
lyr.), Ion 1072 (lyr.), Ph. 1564 (R« C«, lyr.), fr. 397a ($")«
C« S 3/« !), [E.] Rh. 737 ($")« C).
*R!@ is Ilgen’s (1796, 342–43) emendation for the codd.
% & (³-), a vox nihili. In this Ilgen followed Ernesti, who ren-
dered “abstergebat lumina [velut e somno recens], dolum occultans.”
S & occurs only here instead of S* (cf. Il. 5.416, 5.798,
18.414 [the last two with $-], 18.124, 23.739 [$-], Od. 11.527, 11.530,
17.304 [$-], E. Phaëth. 219, Hipp. 653, El. 502, HF 1399, Ar. Ach.
695–96, 843, Pl. Lg. 775d, Mosch. 2.96 etc.).
472 Commentary
Hermes has been rubbing his eyes, pretending that he has just
woken up; cf. 241–42 φ7 W *))« ")1« D
8, | 7!! * and Od. 18.199–200 κ ξ ) L« 8«
$
, | W# $* < / !λ « … It is curious that Apollo
singles out this detail of all of Hermes’ actions, which the poet did not
narrate precisely.
φ ' : elsewhere only at Il. 19.97 and 19.112, referring to
Hera’s crafty tricks; cf. Holmberg (1990, 53–72). Apollo addresses
Hermes as )φ « at 282.
$!' % = [ is preferable to both M’s $)& (which is used
only after a negative; cf. Il. 1.160, 1.180, 8.477, 11.80, 12.238, 15.106,
h.Herm. 557) and p’s $) ‘avoiding’ (possibly an error due to pro-
nunciation). $)1 is found only in the Odyssey where it is used of
troubling about or preparing food: cf. Od. 1.374, 2.139, 8.38,
11.185–86, 13.23. But it is used without elsewhere in the Homeric
Hymns; cf. 476 ($)U« $)), h.Aphr. 11 ($) 3 # $)1).
362 :μ« # :: cf. 336, 346 for Apollo’s avoiding mentioning
Hermes by name. With lines 362–64 Apollo gives an example of
Hermes’ )φ !1(; for C = ‘for example,’ see LSJ s.v. C
II.
" $!%«: cf. Il. 9.309* and Od. 1.373*, both times fol-
lowed by $. $()« ‘bluntly’ implies that the speaker
lacks regard for the addressee’s status or reaction; see Zacco (1996,
151–58).
$! occurs often in this sedes in early hexameter, but never
with «; 3 *# $* /-() is found instead (Il. 3.155,
21.121, 21.427, 22.377, 23.535, 24.142, Od. 4.189, 9.409, 13.165,
17.349).
363–364 Apollo is quoting Hermes’ words from 263–64, possibly also

mimicking the infant god’s tone, rather than reproducing his words in
third person; contrast e.g. Il. 2.12–15 ~ 2.28–32. Again, it is curious that
Apollo omits any reference to the oath Hermes had sworn on Zeus’s
head or his argument from probability. This omission gives Hermes the
opportunity to stage in his second defense speech a performance simi-
lar to the one in his first speech. In quoting Hermes, Apollo perhaps
changes the speed and tone of his voice or indicates the quotation with
Lines 361–365, 366–386 473
some sort of gesture; see Boegehold (1999, 82, 90–91) for examples
from forensic oratory.
365 ? Ν# γ« +Ω # Ν# Z@ k )< « #A% : for the ac-
centuation of - (sometimes printed _ or _), see Wackernagel
(1969, 1089–90), who cites the authority of Apollon. p. 85.5–7 Bekker,
Hdn. λ )
« !) «, III/1 515.13–15 Lentz. Denniston,
GP 553–54 observes that strictly aims at bringing home a point
whose certainty is expressed by _ (he paraphrases: ‘verily, I tell you’);
but has lost its force and become ancillary since - is found also in
narrative (as here). In this verse it is best to understand - as equiv-
alent to ² (cf. Ruijgh 1981), which is answered by () in 366.
For the repetition of Ν , cf. Od. 16.213 γ« Ν φ7!« # Ν #
Q&, and Denniston, GP 33. Our verse combines the above Odyssean
line with - Ρ # γ« Ω # Ν # 3& (Il. 1.68, 1.101, 2.76, 7.354,
7.365, Od. 2.224), always followed by ! # $!(: this formula oc-
curs in the context of public speaking at the assembly (here, the divine
assembly).
At 327 we were told that both gods were standing before Zeus’s
knees; as soon as Apollo finishes his speech, he takes a seat. This leaves
the floor open for Hermes’ performance.
366–386 Hermes’ speech

Hermes’ speech, contrary to Apollo’s, is carefully structured and re-
peats themes already encountered in his first defense speech to Apollo
(whereas Apollo has been repeating points made by Hermes and the
narrator). He begins with an attempt to establish his credibility, stating
that he does not know how to lie (368–69); this aims at achieving the
captatio benevolentiae. He then gives an account of Apollo’s invasion
into his cave (370–76); the argument from probability that was pres-
ented earlier to Apollo follows, and once again Hermes offers an oath.
The speech concludes with a threat of revenge and a plea to Zeus that
he aid the young and weak (385–86). Notice the deft employment of
asyndeton at 370, 378, 382, and 384 that underlines the structure of
Hermes’ speech.
Hermes’ oration begins and ends with Zeus, and the narrative fol-
lows the chronological order of the events. Note, however, that Hermes
474 Commentary
does not answer Apollo’s accusations but rather counters with an ac-
count of what occurred when Apollo burst into his cave (but keeping
silent about his own journey to Pieria); cf. Heiden (2010, 420–21). In
other words, Hermes responds to Apollo’s accusations by attempting to
show that Apollo himself is guilty of improper behaviour and of not fol-
lowing the proper procedure in searching for evidence. In addition, in
both defence speeches Hermes’ oath is intended to further the action:
with his first oath (on Zeus’s head), Hermes suggests that he and Apollo
ought to resort to Zeus for a settlement of their dispute; with the second
(on the Olympian vestibule) Hermes hints that he wants to be admitted
into the gods’ palace.
Görgemanns (1976, 117–19; contra Kennedy [1963, 41]) sees in this
speech the parts of an oration in rudimentary form: 368–69 constitute
the proem; 370–76 could be called the diegesis; 376–77, which repeat the
argument from probability constitute the pistis; finally, 378–86 contain
an emotional appeal characteristic of epilogues. Hermes’ insistence on
the absence of witnesses in the diegesis corroborates Görgemanns’ view
that this speech is a miniature specimen of forensic oratory.
Hermes’ speech aims at an emotional effect: he begins with an
address of Zeus as father, mentions his love for Zeus, attempts to make
his addressee an accomplice or ‘witness’ (cf. 382–83 ‘you know that I
am innocent’ and ))& at 387), and concludes with a powerful
emotional appeal to Zeus to protect him.
366 E« # σ"# J%" $< « 0 « Κ: = M, D, P, L,

and p; 366a in Càssola’s edition); E, T, Lm, Pm offer E
« # Ν))
$! 3. Both verses are made up of formulaic
components (see formulaic apparatus), and such variants occur else-
where in the Hymns; see Allen (1895, 302), and below 563n.
J%" could mean ‘from a different quarter,’ implying that
Hermes had moved from where he originally stood (i.e. *! :μ«
328, just as Apollo). Alternatively, it could be rendered ‘on the
other hand.’ Put another way, ' can contrast the position of
the subject of its clause from that of the subject of the previous clause.
But it may also have continuative force, and usually the clause contain-
ing ' describes an action identical, or nearly identical, to that
of the preceding clause. In this case, 366 introduces another speech in
reply to the one preceding. See LfgrE, s.v. ' .
Lines 366–386, 366–368 475
367 8 +« K % : an oratorical gesture; for gestures in ora-

tory, see Sittl (1890, 206–11) and Graf (1992). Hermes is about to ad-
dress Zeus (cf. 368 Z ) and thus points at him. As the patron
god of oratory, Hermes delivers a speech that is rhetorically organized
and accompanies his words with non-verbal language both at the
beginning and the end of the speech (cf. 387 ))&). For the
orator’s pointing at his addressee(s), see Boegehold (1999, 85) who fo-
cuses on the deictic -.
"- % : in Homer and the Homeric Hymns
!( (= one who gives a signal or leads, hence a king, com-
mander, but even a driver of horses or herdsman) is used of humans
(cf. Il. 4.431, 8.127, 15.325, Od. 17.21, 19.314, h.Dem. 131, h.Apol. 542).
368 Z : This common speech opening is often follwed by _ W

(instead of - that we have here); cf. Il. 5.421 ≈ 5.762, 7.446, 8.236,
Od. 24.351. As a form of address coming from Hermes, it may be
deemed somewhat bold, since Zeus has not yet acknowledged Hermes’
paternity; we notice this sort of boldness also at 378 (see n.). Contrast
also Apollo’s colourless τ at 334.
? &!6 $" $! '%: cf. Od. 16.226, 17.108, 22.420
@ , (
), $)(( )<; this formulaic
precedent suggests that Hermann’s @ (for @ !) deserves con-
sideration, though ! is of course found in Homer (cf. Od. 3.359,
11.381; Il. 4.43, 21.358; h.Dem. 40617). In all the Odyssean passages
cited at the beginning we observe the speaker’s promise to tell the truth
to the addressee with whom he/she has a familial bond; in addition, all
these instances are found at the beginning of a speech in which the
speaker gives in fact a truthful account of a personal experience that
strives for completeness (cf. Krischer [1965, 168]). But Hermes’ state-
ment is manifestly false (cf. 379–80 and 390), though the young god
does not strictly speaking lie anywhere in his speech (except at 369).
False tales are often introduced by the speaker’s statement that he/
she is going to tell the truth, as Hübner (1986, 171) points out (cf. Od.
14.192 @ )# $ « $ 1!, 16.61
@ , , $)( # $ 1!, h.Dem. 120–21).
17 At h.Dem. 406 @ ! is the reading in M; P.Oxy. XXIII 2379 (1231 M–P3) reads ]
([. Richardson prints @ . Note that Hermann had conjectured here as well.
476 Commentary
On - (here = Ω ), see 365n. Its apodosis (sc. ‘as opposed to
Apollo who lied’) is left unmentioned and is to be supplied.
369 « ‘unerring’ is usually either adverbial (e.g. Il. 1.514

( ξ« ξ 7 K*!/, 6.376 ( 7!!, 14.470,
Od. 3.101, 3.327, 4.314, 4.331, 4.642 ( ξ« !«, etc.; cf. h.Herm.
315 ( φ) or modifies words such as 3« (Il. 3.204) or
")7 (Od. 1.86 ≈ 5.30, h.Apol. 132, 252, 292 = divine decision or pro-
nouncement). Of persons it is found only at Od. 4.349, 384, 401, 542,
17.140 ( Ϊ)« ( 7«) and Hes. Th. 235 (Nereus). Hermes’
application of ( 7« to himself is particularly apt: strictly speaking
he certainly does not err as he chooses his words extremely carefully so
that he neither lies nor perjures himself.
λ : ρ B'": ‘and I don’t know how to lie.’ This state-
ment is the only actual lie in Hermes’ speech; we are reminded of his
claim that he does not know what cows are at 277 and 311; it is thus yet
another hint at Hermes’ extreme disingenuousness.
370–376 Radermacher ad loc. compared this section with Dem.

21.78–79, where a similar intrusion into the litigant’s home is de-
scribed.
370 N" : Hermes does not mention Apollo’s name at all in this
speech; cf. Il. 9.115–61 where Agamemnon avoids any mention of
Achilles’ name. This has been interpreted as a sign of naiveté (Gemoll)
or discourtesy (AS). We have observed this already in Apollo’s speech
earlier; both gods wish to avoid mentioning the (despicable) opponent’s
name. Perhaps Hermes is pointing at his opponent with a gesture, just
as Apollo might have done earlier (cf. Cμ« # i«).
&« π cf. Od. 2.55, 7.301, 17.534 is formed by analogy to «
5A (e.g. S. Ph. 1211, fr. 837.3, E. Med. 1110, Hipp. 829, HF 24 etc.);
Hdt. 1.35.1 and 7.8 1 has π . See also Chantraine, GH II 105
(§ 149) and Schwyzer II 120. There is thus no need for Barnes’ π-
(sc. *).
« π (‘into our home’) is cleverly chosen for the ambiguity
and humour it causes: does ‘our’ home refer to Hermes and Maia alone
or is Zeus to be included as well?
@ « + « < «: cf. 191 and 262.
Lines 368–371, 372–373 477
371 & : an unhomeric phrase for the sun’s

rising, formed by analogy to ) (197). In
Homer the rising of the sun is expressed as follows: ) $*« Il.
8.538, 22.135; Ϊ# )) $* Il. 18.136, Od. 12.429, 23.362; )«
# $* ! … | … b# $! φ | λ (! " !
Od. 3.1–3; and )« ξ 3 !")) $ 1 « | … |
C μ !@ Il. 7.421–23 (cf. Hes. Th. 760–61). )) is used
of a star’s rising at Hes. Op. 383, 567; cf. LSJ s.v. )) B.
372 :ξ "- % : Interestingly, Hermes suppresses the detail

about the only existing witness, the Old Man of Onchestos, who could
act as a « or *(« (of Hermes’ theft). This is another way by
which Hermes asserts his position: only an immortal can testify against
another immortal.
372–373 For the combination of C … C, … … (‘neither …

nor …, but …’), see Denniston, GP 203.
: … Ν! « :ξ «: For the turn of phrase, cf.
Il. 22.255 3!! … λ ! . Apollo not only did
not bring in any witnesses when he burst into Maia’s cave, he did not
even mention the Old Man’s testimony.
Homer has only the form « (Il. 1.338, 2.302, 3.280, 14.274,
22.255, Od. 1.273, 14.394, 16.423; cf. [Hes.] Sc. 20); « appears first
at Hes. Op. 371 and Archil. 248. *(« (normally ‘spy, scout’; Homer
has
«,
«) occurs first here, and subsequently at
Hdt. 3.17.2, 3.21.2, A. Th. 41 (cf. 36
«), 369, E. Hel. 1175,
[E.] Rh. 134 (lyr.), 150, 155 etc. Here it is equivalent to C*(« (‘eye-
witness’), cf. Hdt. 2.29.1, 3.115.5, 4.16.1, 8.79.4, 8.80.1 etc.
A « (usually evoked in oaths) has the moral responsibility to
give an account of what happened, while an C*(« has witnessed
the facts but is by no means morally obliged to report them; cf. Nenci
(1958, esp. 227–28). The presence of witnesses in the search at the thief’s
home had also the aim to protect the accused against unjustified vio-
lence; see Latte (1931, 138).
Feyel (1946, 18) implausibly associates *« with the homony-
mous Boeotian magistrates who are attested in the epigraphical record
in the 3rd century BC.
478 Commentary
373 ' : contrast 254 (7˘). The tradition is here unanimous,

but (˘ could have stood (and was in fact proposed by van Her-
werden [1876, 70]); cf. Schulze, QE 340. Zumbach 52 considers this an
Atticism (see above, p. 45).
$ !« Dμ «: ‘by means of great physical force’; cf. 293.
$ ( has the same basic meaning as $ (, but it may denote
a more specific form of compulsion depending on the context in which
it occurs. From Herodotus on (e.g. 1.116.5 $*« « « $ «;
cf. LSJ, s.v. $ ( I 3 b) $ ( can also mean ‘torture.’ See LfgrE,
s.v. $ ( 2a, Schreckenberg (1964, 44–45), and Munson (2001,
30–31, 36–37).
373–374 « | : an instance of anadiplosis (with switch

from attributive to adverbial ))). For repetition of )1«, cf.
249–250n. and 179–80 (Ϊ)« …|… Ϊ)« ’).
374 3 # <) &« T :' : cf. 256–59.

)) is certainly an exaggeration. La Roche (1882, 896) proposed
)) # $)(! ") # « T .
375–376 ² … | :3 &!6: cf. Od. 8.308–11 spoken by another under-

dog figure, Hephaestus (³« ξ /)μ * :μ« ( #Aφ ( |
ξ $&, φ) # $U() 5A (, | 8/# ² ξ )*« λ
$ «, C @ | μ« *(); cf. further Od. 3.162–65,
7.251–52, 11.627–28, 12.143–44, 12.431–32, Theoc. 7.130–31.
375 Ν " « 05 φ « F<« probably a modification of

Ν« 3/# « D"(« (Hes. Th. 988).
Ν " « is normally used with ( (Od. 9.449, Sapph./Alc.
16.3); cf. PMG 929e.1.3–4 $!!« λ )@| # Ν[]
« (dithyramb, 5th/4th c. BC). The original meaning of Ν« is
‘growth’; cf. Buttmann (1865, I 275) and Aitchinson (1963). The meta-
phorical sense of Ν« occurs also at h.Dem. 108 ( 7 Ν«;
see Richardson at 108 and 279).
*φ « appears only in this Hymn (also at 481 of / *«,
typically an activity of youths). It is later found as a proper name
(d) 1(«) in Athens (5th–2nd c. BC), Euboea, and Ceos (both 4th–3rd
c. BC); see LGPN I 466, II 456, IIIb 428, IV 347.
Lines 373–378 479
« D"(« (Hes. Th. 988), which is otherwise metrically and

semantically equivalent to our φ) « D"(«, would cause hiatus
here.
376 :3 &!Ω 5"@μ« ! : cf. 273.

3 # ρ λ :« is parenthetic. The insertion of () may
be due to the neglect of the digamma; cf. Ruijgh, épique §745.
377 Κ < - & ) - φ%λ & 6«: cf. 265n. Barnes
emended to 3 (cf. 265), but emendation is not necessary: Hermes
combines the two elements that he had used in his earlier speech to
Apollo, the fact that he is one day old and that he does not resemble
a strong man as one would expect a cattle-rustler to be, but his train of
thought has been interrupted by … C*«. In combining these two
elements, Hermes subordinates 377 to 376, thereby reversing their logical
order; we would expect: ‘having been born yesterday, I do not resemble a
mighty man …’; for such reversal, see Kühner II 2, p. 98–99 § 490 (2)
378 " : cf. Il. 1.274 where Nestor urges Agamemnon and Achilles
to be persuaded by his rhetoric ($)) ! λ Κ«, λ -
! Ν); cf. p. 140 n. 46.
λ !3 &) κ φ « Κ5 ρ : ‘for you boast that you
are also my dear father.’ This is also parenthetic (cf. 376). should be
taken with , as Radermacher suggests.
These words are both comical and bold: they express once again
Hermes’ antagonism to his brother (Zeus is also his father, not just
Apollo’s); but normally it is the son who boasts of his father or ance-
stors; cf. Il. 6.211, 20.241 1(«
« λ b« Κ/
ρ, Il. 14.113 μ« # < $ λ Ω Κ/ ρ, Il. 21.187
C Ω κ ) :μ« Κ/ ρ, Od. 1.180–81 M(«
#A/) Uφ « Κ/ ρ | ¹*«, Od. 14.204 K!
Γ) («, Ω « Κ/ ρ. The clausula κ # &μ«
Κ5() ρ recurs at Od. 9.519 and 529 (uttered by Polyphemus),
but without the same degree of boldness we meet here: the second half-
line repeats the sense of the first (Od. 9.519 Ω « , 9.529
* !*« , both verses are preceded by a reference to Posei-
don). Humbert ad loc. understood this as a sign of Hermes’ impudence.
Cf. 368n. and Fernández-Delgado (1990, 211 n. 33).
480 Commentary
379 ³« : ;# 0 <«: for F # 3)!!, cf. Od. 13.169
([
] F # )(). "*« is guaranteed by the metre; cf. 116n.
For 3)!! "*«, cf. 14 )
", 265 and 377 " )
.
For "*«, cf. 310.
Hermes’ words are strictly speaking true: he did not lead the cows
to his home, since he hid them in the cave at Pylos!
γ« 2< « ; : ‘so may I prosper,’ another parenthetical phrase.
The idea is that Hermes’ prosperity depends on the truthfulness of his
statement ³« C F # 3)!! "*«.
³« (sic) R)"« F( could be also understood as a clause of wish:
‘would that I were rich’ (sc. so that I possess cows to lead home); cf.
Chantraine GH II 214 (§316).
This phrase could also be taken as a purpose clause (hence not par-
enthetical), i.e. ‘I did not drive the cows home in order that I might
prosper.’ Though Hermes has been pursuing R)"« throughout the en-
tire poem, this statement too would technically not be lie, as it depends
on ³« C F # 3)!! "*« (which Hermes manifestly did not).
After all, Hermes was not only after material gain, but more impor-
tantly he wanted to be included among the Olympians (cf. 170); cf. 477
!L , φ), « R&.
380 :# Dξ :μ 0< : this statement is also true since Hermes
/λ« )7 3 (146 with n.). Thus when
the young god offers an oath, he does not perjure himself.
μ # $%« $! '%: cf. 272 μ # $ « $ 1«.
This is humorous too: the recipient of this little comment is not only the
direct addressee of the speech, Zeus, but also Apollo whose accusations
were characterized as $ earlier. In other words Hermes is say-
ing to Apollo: ‘I speak $ « (‘accurately and exactly,’ given that
Hermes’ reply is crafted so as to avoid perjuring himself), whereas you
spoke $ «.’
381 #H ξ # + is ambiguous, as Gemoll points out: it

may mean ‘I fear Helios,’ i.e. I respect him and would not commit a
crime in his view but also ‘I fear the light,’ i.e. I wait for night, like a true
π * « $7 (Hes. Op. 605). Helios was invoked in oaths in his
capacity as the overseer of everything that happens in the world and he
sometimes functions as the informer; cf. Od. 8.302 and Richardson on
Lines 379–383 481
h.Dem. 24–26. Of course, Hermes can freely evoke Helios since he stole
the cattle at night, hence Helios had not witnessed the theft.
λ « Ν «: in its other occurrences « Ν)) is
preceded by a reference to Zeus; cf. Il. 1.222, h.Apol. 11.
382 λ ξ φ- λ >@ : notice again the demonstrative

instead of Apollo’s name. Hermes chooses his words carefully: he re-
spects the Sun and the other gods and loves his father; but for Apollo he
reserves S&!, which is normally used of someone (usually a mor-
tal) dreading divine vengeance; cf. Od. 5.146, [Hes.] Sc. 21, h.Aphr. 290,
Thgn. 734, 1148, 1297, and Cairns (1993, 136–37, 159). S&!
would thus suggest that the relation between Hermes and Apollo is one
between a weaker and a stronger person. Hermes thus presents himself
with false subservience, as he goes beyond merely acknowledging Apol-
lo’s status in front of Zeus (even though they both are gods).
λ S& makes it clear that for our poet Apollo and
Helios are distinct characters, not to be identified with each other.
382b–383 ρ" λ :μ« | ³« : ;« +: cf. 275 where this as-
sertion is part of Hermes’ oath to Apollo (κ ξ Ω 7# Cμ«
K!/ F« ρ). Before offering his second oath, Hermes tries
a different strategy: he attempts to make Zeus appear as an accomplice
who shares some knowledge with him or in some way to preempt his
agreement; cf. 387 ))&.
383 ! # & Ρ : a bold expression. ‘grasp’

is Herwerden’s emendation, which he proposed in (1888, 81–82) but re-
voked later, for (‘distribute’ ) and 1 (‘be in need
of’ M), neither of which yields satisfactory sense here. sug-
gests that Hermes is actually touching the object he purports to swear
by (i.e. the walls of the vestibule). A Ρ « is sometimes viewed as a
concrete object touched by the person who swears the oath; cf. West on
Hes. Th. 400, Benveniste (1969, II 168) and Hirzel (1979, 12–22).
Barnes, reacting to Stephanus’ *!! (a non-existent form),
emended to @! (‘I shall add …’); but ! is used of
gods invoked at an oath, not of the oath itself; cf. Il. 22.254 $))# Ν
L« @ (= ‘let us each invoke [lit. add] our own gods’,
sc. as witnesses to our agreement). Goodwin’s # λ Ρ S
482 Commentary
captures the desired sense, but it is unclear how this could have been
corrupted to the manuscript readings. Shackle (1920, 100–101) pro-
posed # ’ Ρ (‘Besides, I reverence a great oath’);
cf. also Allen’s # Ν # # Ρ . The closest parallels to
this phrase, however, (S. OT 647 )! *# Ρ !λ«
and 652–53 μ Κ λ 7 # Ρ | ) !)
imply respect for an oath that has already been sworn. Pötscher (2004)
suggests 3 , for which he proposes two meanings: ‘I also swear
a great oath’ (for he compares Ρ = R) or ‘I
also offer, serve, a great oath’ (where for , cf. *« and
Hermes’ function as distributor of meat at the Alpheios scene). But
Hermes does not ‘serve’ any oath, as he does not actually swear the oath
(see 384n.).
For the ‘great oath,’ cf. 274n., where it is Zeus’s head. Normally the
great oath of the gods is sworn by Styx’s water, although this may not
have originally been the gods’ great oath, cf. Leumann, HW 81–82: in
Hera’s words at Il. 15.36–38 F! * f λ OC μ« C L«
8 | λ μ "* μ« 8 , Ρ« !« | Ρ «
**« ) !! !, the relative clause was taken to
refer only to the last part, i.e. Styx’s water, instead of to the entire
preceding oath (Gaia, Ouranos, and Styx’s water); this must have hap-
pened early on in the tradition, as the equation of the great oath of the
gods with Styx’s water is found already in Hesiod.
384 : 3 # $" % : "' – : The oath for-

mula (C …) is left suspended, without any statement (i.e. the con-
tent of the oath proper) to accompany it. This, again, protects Hermes
from committing perjury.
For the oath on the door/vestibule, cf. Men. fr. 884 1
c
v
c μ #A*)) <λ> | λ « 1 «.
: occurs only here and at Eust. Il. I 199 (p. 129),
I 394 (p. 258), and Od. I 205 (p. 1528), where it means ‘well-adorned’ (of
Briseis). But cf. !(λ ! at Od. 7.127 and C *!« at Od.
21.123 and Hes. Op. 628.
"' is found only here and App.Anth. Epigr. Dedicat. 196
(= p. 31 Cougny; 3# $"« / < K))« « |
/( & ) ¹ ), and as an epithet of Artemis at
[Orph.] H. 2.4, 12 and IG IV2, 1 276 (Epidaurus 3rd c. BC?), and Hecate
Lines 383–384 483
at Procl. H. 6.2, 14. Homer has * , e.g. Il. 11.777, 18.496,
22.71, 24.323, Od. 1.103, 4.20, 8.304 etc., which is “the entrance porch
of a hero’s dwelling that marks after the courtyard wall the boundary
between exterior and interior … a transitional space, * used
in the plural and often in formulaic phrases signifies the entrance
porch, accessible from the exterior, whereas the same term in the sin-
gular designates the interior of the compound, just before crossing the
gates, of a more modest dwelling,” according to Rougier-Blanc (2005,
130); see also p. 112–31. For the * of the gods’ abodes, cf. Il.
15.124 (the * of Olympus) and Od. 8.325 (the * at
Hephaestus’ palace).
Entrance-ways to private houses were decorated with statues or
small shrines, e.g. herms (see 26n.), a Hecataion (Ar. V. 802–804 $
« 1 « 7! »« $κ | K) !( -
μ , | —! E / μ ), a statue of
Apollo Agyieus (Ar. V. 875 τ !# Ν< #A, C
1 1)), or encaustic paintings; cf. Cratin. 42 -
!« λ * "1) ). Such * have been exca-
vated at Olynthus; see Robinson and Graham (1938, 154–56) and
Cairns (1983b, 29).
Whether the audience expected an oath on Styx or on Zeus’s head
as earlier, this line comically deflates their expectations: Hermes swears
by touching the walls of the vestibule as suggests; thus we
may surmise that Hermes has moved towards the entrance of Zeus’s
palace. Touching the walls of the vestibule implies Hermes’ desire to
penetrate it, as Clay observes in Politics 136 with n. 129. At any rate, the
choice of the object by which Hermes swears reflects the fact that he be-
longs to the so-called 1 gods, among whom he establishes
himself now; cf. Farnell, Cults II 431 and IV 45 (Artemis )),
II 517 (Artemis ), and V 19 (Hermes 1)«/-
)«); Thuc. 6.27.2 mentions herms placed in front of private houses
(' λ ) « 1 «): thus by touching the vestibule
Hermes inserts himself in an area where one would expect to find his
cultic representation; cf. 15n. (on )(* ).
Van den Berg (2001, 262 n. 14) proposes that Procl. De mala subs.
14.17–18 velut in prothyris | (id est proforiis) deorum may take its origin
from h.Herm.
484 Commentary
385 # &!Ω ') % % λ φ% : ‘and some day I shall
pay him back for the pitiless search/theft.’ Hermes’ incomplete oath is
followed by an ambiguous threat of revenge (see below).
For = ‘in accordance with’, cf. LSJ s.v. *« C III 2. Hermes’
revenge will be proportionate to the events, as opposed to Apollo who
‘overreacted’ (cf. 374n.). AHS took in tmesi with ! (= ‘I shall
pay him back with interest’), comparing !»; but ! is
nowhere attested, while !» does not have the meaning that
AHS detect here.
is found in this sedes (often in the formulae () /) ) ,
() ) , and ()ξ« _ ), but never with φ@ (. The epithet is
justified here in view of 254–59, 293, and 307–308.
φ@ ( is the reading in M, while has φ7 (as at 136). Some
sources distinguish between φ ‘theft’ and φ@ ‘search, investi-
gation’; cf. Sommer (1948, 153–54), Hsch. φ 1106 φ α )7, but
φ 1110 φ »α μ )5 &(. λ φ ». φ@ ( ξ
κ 3 ; and the MSS in Nic. Al. 273 (P ( )κ
$< φ («), where Gow-Schofield print φ
«, but Schneider
follows the MSS and prints φ@ («, understanding )7 = μ -
). At Sud. φ 665 φ «· )9 (!«. $μ κ φ@ -

!, φ@ seems to mean ‘theft.’
Càssola, following Hermann, adopted φ 7 (“rapimento” = ‘ab-
duction’). However, Hermes was not abducted by Apollo; every at-
tempt of Apollo to seize Hermes was thwarted (cf. 297), and it was
Hermes himself who led Apollo to Olympus.
Hermes’ threat involves a play on the meaning of φ 7 (‘theft,’ but
also ‘investigation’). Hermes means that he will take his revenge for
Apollo’s crude investigation (φ 7 ‘investigation’; cf. LSJ s.v. φ
II), but uses in his threat the very word of which he is guilty (φ 7
‘theft’; cf. LSJ s.v. φ I). The phrase can be understood in two ways:
on one level it is a real warning of revenge (‘I shall pay him back for this
search in my cave’); however, Hermes could be also saying ‘I shall pay
him back (i.e. reimburse) for this theft of mine’ (i.e. by exchanging the
cattle for the lyre), which actually happens at 496–99.
386 λ ) - & : cf. 418 ( λ * *, i.e.

Apollo) where Hermes begins to sing to the lyre, a performance that
causes Apollo to ask for the lyre in exchange for the cattle, and thus ac-
Lines 385–388 485
cept Hermes’ ‘payment.’ At Il. 15.195 λ *« @ is uttered

by another divine brother (Poseidon about Zeus).
4 # ² Ν!: For helping those in need (suppliants),
cf. E. Heracl. 417, 426. With this concluding statement Hermes at-
tempts to elicit Zeus’s pity so that he takes his side, a strategy often
found in an epilogue of a forensic oration; see Boegehold (1999, 90). In
terms of his age Hermes is truly ²)* « (‘younger’), which creates
the expectation that he is also weaker than his opponent, hence the
need for Zeus’s support. His speech however demonstrates that he has
abilities beyond those one would expect from such a young character,
and it is Apollo who is found at a disadvantage.
387–388 Hermes’ non-verbal conclusion to his speech

387 &@% : ‘winking.’ ))& occurs once in Homer, at Od.
18.11–12 (C/ $« Ρ 7 ))&! Ϊ« | ') ξ
)), where it means ‘make signs by winking,’ which silently sug-
gest a course of action (') ). At A.R. 1.486 and 3.791–92 it is ac-
companied by . Closer to the sense of our line is Il. 9.179–81
! ξ *))# )) f 7« ¹* N! | )) «
Q !, #O!!
ξ )! | » ³« $1
P()U, Hor. S. 1.9.66 distorquens oculos ut me eriperet. Here
))& is Hermes’ impudent invitation to Zeus to become his ac-
complice by taking his side in this dispute.
K « #A!φ «: On K))7«, see 2n. (K))7(«); on
#A φ*(«, see 73n. This imposing presentation of Hermes (the se-
cond half-line is occupied by a cult-title and an epithet that alludes to a
violent act which has not yet occurred in the mythical time in which the
story takes place) humorously contrasts with the following line, in
which Hermes’ swaddling-clothes are mentioned again.
388 μ ! : see 151n. The article here has referential force, link-
ing to the other instances in the poem where these swaddling-clothes
were mentioned. On the functions of the article in h.Herm., see Ambro-
sini (1986, esp. 71–73).
! reminds the audience of the absurd fact that the
preceding speech was delivered by an infant, who should not have the
ability to speak. At the same time, Hermes keeps his swaddling-cloth
486 Commentary
# %)( because he is hiding his lyre there; cf. h.Herm. 433, 510
) &, and West (2003a, 145).
&# R 9
: %)( occurs only here in archaic poetry, but cf. )-
@)« (used of Hera, and less frequently of other females) and
) (h.Herm. 433, 510, A.R. 1.557, Nonn. D. 9.55–56); it is sub-
sequently found at [A.] Pr. 60, S. Tr. 926, fr. 483.2, E. Med. 902, IT 966,
Ion 1213, Ph. 1375, Ba. 1133 etc. and in medical authors.
:# $<: cf. Il. 2.183, Il. 21.51, Od. 14.500, where the cloth-
ing (or armour) is cast off ($"))) in order that the individual
may run (or flee) faster.
389–396 Zeus’s reaction to Hermes’ speech and his verdict

389 ! # &8! : cf. Od. 16.354 and 18.35 (πL # Ν # -
)!«), both times followed by a direct address. Hermes’ perform-
ances cause a smile at 281 and 420.
* : the adjective occurs only here, but cf. 7/
7 at Il. 7.478, 21.413, Od. 3.166, 12.295 (the last two in the same
sedes as 7), 14.243; cf. 7(« (Od. 1.438), !7(«
(Pi. N. 9.13, Bacch. 16.15), and )7(« (Simon. 575.1), and the
Homeric proper names :7(«, > !7(«, [ 7(« etc. At
Sol. 36.21 a person who is φ 7« is also φ) 7.
390 ‘Expressing his denial (of the accusations) regarding the cows well
and skilfully.’
σ λ & %« recurs in Homer (Il. 10.265*, Od. 20.161*,
23.197*) and denotes skill in some technical, manual, task. It is used of
verbal art at Hes. Op. 107 ()* φ@!). Panyas. 16.3 uses it of
drinking wine properly.
$φλ < : ‘concerning the cows’; cf. Chantraine, GH II 88
(§123) and Schwyzer II 438.
391 ²φ "μ 05 «: contrast 315.
392 @' is found instead of &( also at Hes. Op. 400* (&(19(«
"), and h.Apol. 215* (Apollo seeking a place in which to establish
his oracle). At 191, 216, 262, and 370 the poet used &7«, and
&(! could have been employed here (cf. Hes. Op. 603 where
Lines 388–393 487
&(! is used at line-beginning). The explanation for this difference

may lie in the fact that &7« in h.Herm. occurs in contexts that
seem to be formulaic: 191 "« … &7« # ¹ and 262
"« $ 1)« &7« # ¹ «; likewise at 216 and 370
&7« )« "«. However, here the poet was not under any
formulaic constraint.
E ξ π! ' : cf. Timocl. 14 E
« # ²
M« ! (= Wilamowitz, adopted by Kassel-Aus-
tin; the papyrus has ! for which Koerte proposed !-
). The precise meaning of « was unclear in antiquity;
cf. D (X, ZYQR) Il. 2.103 * ): *) | « $)«
. ν * ) λ !φ μ ). ν )
) λ
!( « !«, EM 268.10–24, and Hsch. 1095–96, 1098;
see Chittenden (1948, 29–30).
It has been etymologized in modern times: (i) from + «
(‘possession’ or ‘gift’), hence ‘Dispenser, Giver’ (so Solmsen; Boisacq
and Cook relate it to chthonian deities); or (ii) from , hence
‘Conductor, Guide’ (so already Lucian Cont. 1 ! «; this was
adopted by Ameis and Chittenden). Janko (1978) considers «
a secondary formation from (< ), whose genitive at
some point in the tradition was mistaken for a nominative. Our poet
may have understood « as ‘leader, conductor,’ since he
couples it with π1, thus setting up an etymological pun; cf.
30n. and Lingohr (1954, 195), who suggests that Zeus bestows here on
Hermes the cult-name «.
For Hermes as leader or escort, cf. 14 π7 S , his cult-
titles π*« and 47 , and his titles in tragedy *« (A. Pers.
626–29, S. OC. 1548) and « (A. Eu. 90–91, S. Aj. 832, E. Med.
759). In Alex. 93.1 Hermes is addressed as (see Arnott
ad loc. on the textual problem with ).
Ironically Apollo, the god of colonization (cf. his cult-title
<((7«, Pl. R. 427c), has to be led once again by Hermes; cf. Montig-
lio (2005, 87–88).
Notice the rhyming effect of &(1 / π1.
393 &# $<<9 : cf. # $")") at A. Ag. 1024 (with Fraen-
kel’s n.) This phrase is reminiscent of ‘anti-deceit clauses’ found in
treaties; cf. Thuc. 5.18.9, 5.47, D.H. A.R. 8.9.3 φ)« λ !/«
488 Commentary
Ν *) λ $(«, IG I3 29 fr. a 7 ($")"« λ $*)« λ C

"7! /9 ( Cξ (/9
C)
»), 37 fr. bc18, 54 fr. a–d
23.27, 83.3, 86 fr. a–d, g3, 89 fr. a–h 29 ($*)« λ $")"«), 53.14
(<1/ !* !λ λ λ !/ λ λ $")"«),
I.Cret. IV (Gortyna) 81.12 ($")) [= $")") ] «); see
Wheeler (1984) and Gazzano (2005).
393–394 μ 5- … | Ρ9 : cf. Il. 10.520, 23.138 (/ … Ρ[]),

Od. 14.2 (/ … 9
x), h.Apol. 521 (/ … 3).
394 σ(): = κ σ. The MSS transmit # σ (LfgrE, s.v. σ,

col. 1590.58–61). This makes σ seem plausible, although we could
restore κ
σ as previous editors have done. One would expect (σ
in Ionic (which we find in fact in Archil. 88.1, Hippon. 122, Anacr.
349.1, 356a.6, 356b.1 etc.), and σ seems to follow the Attic rules of
crasis; but it would not be correct to call this an Atticism, as ( do
sometimes yield an in Ionic; see Wackernagel (1916, 9), Càssola
623–24. When the initial diphthong of the second word remains un-
changed, it is difficult to tell with certainty whether crasis or elision has
taken place; cf. Buck GD §94.1 (with n. 5) and 94.7.
Radermacher 143, comparing with - for which the MSS
transmit # -, suggested that we ought to take # σ here to re-
present ξ σ, citing Hdt. 5.13.2 « ξ ¹ P« Ν !
λ
« ( as a parallel for in a question. But this will
not do: has there its connective force, linking the question just
quoted to the preceding « ξ : ² κ F(; cf.
Denniston GP 173–74.
In questions σ often expresses indignation; cf. LfgrE, s.v. I2b.
< - ;φ" : see 94n.
395 ξ K «: cf. 519n. Elsewhere when Zeus’s nod (to con-
firm his decision) causes Olympus to tremble; cf. Il. 1.528–30 = h.Hom.
1.13–15 _ λ 9 (! # Sφ 1! ! K α | $" *!
# Ν / @! Ν « | μ« $# $α
# ))< 5O).
&" # $!μ« E«: “the use of parataxis instead of hy-
potaxis underscores the swiftness of the execution” (Radermacher).
Our poet’s description contrasts with ps.-Apollodorus’ where Hermes
Lines 393–398 489
is said to have refused to return the cattle when Zeus bade him do so;
see p. 95.
Note the repetition in ~ 3.
396 G%« !3 0" μ« « +!5 : explains the preceding

# $)μ« E
«. The :μ« *« introduced in 10 is now
completed: Hermes has been received on Olympus, and the reconcili-
ation of the two divine brothers will follow.
+! 5 « is often rendered ‘aegis-bearing’ or ‘aegis-shaking’ (cf.
7ζ/«), but it may have originally meant ‘driving the stormcloud.’
See West (1978, 366–68, 384), who agrees with the derivation from F<
-ζ/ / ζ*/« and suggests that F< was the name of a bird, just as
Himmelsziege in German, a species of snipe whose flight presages the
arrival of a storm. F< was also the name of a bird in Greek (though
not the same as Himmelsziege; cf. Arist. HA 593b23). If the flight of
this bird was a sign of storm in Greece as in Germany, and given that
Zeus was a sky-god, poets may have developed an image of Zeus riding
in a chariot drawn by it, just as Aphrodite was thought of as riding a
chariot drawn by sparrows. See further Hooker (1979, 113–15) (=
‘aegis-bearing’), Janko on Il. 15.18–31 and 15.308–11, and Willcock
(2000, 696–98). In antiquity it was etymologized from F< ‘goat’ or
from «, but it was also sometimes related to ‘storm’; cf. A Il.
17.594, Eust. Il. I 136 (p. 86), Eust. Il. III 179 (p. 839) Apollon.Soph.
p. 18.5 Bekker.
397–578 The Reconciliation

397–408 Hermes reveals the stolen cattle to Apollo
397 Ω # Νφ%: cf. Il. 6.19, 11.782, Od. 18.89, in all of which the phrase
occurs after the penthemimeral caesura and is followed by a noun (or
substantive) + verb combination ( 1(, *))# )),
/ « $!/).
' : the will of Zeus is quickly implemented; cf. 395n.
μ« : cf. 323n.
398 &« P' " (): in the Triphylian rather than Nestor’s
Messenian Pylos, for which see Kirk on Il. 2.591–94; but note that
490 Commentary
Didymus considered Nestor’s Pylos to be the Triphylian one ( Pi. P.

6.35).
Pylos is here masculine, whereas at 216 the poet had used it as femi-
nine (P1) (). P1)« is found as masculine and feminine not
only in these formulaic phrases, but also in later authors and scholiasts;
see the references in Yalouris (1967, 70 n. 18), who proposes that per-
haps π P1)« denoted originally the city of Pylos, while ² P1)« the
sandy land of the Pylians.
+# &# #Aφ U8 : cf. Il. 14.433–34 = 21.1–2 = 24.692–93
$))# Ρ * s< « , | 7«. For the
ford at Alpheios, cf. Il. 2.592 λ > 1 #A)φ * (in the cata-
logue of Nestor’s forces), and especially h.Apol. 423–24 λ > 1
#A)φ * (sc. b ) λ 1 Aρ | λ P1)
*: Pylos and the ford at Alpheios are coordinated and distin-
guished from each other. Hence Wolf’s # # (for [’s * ’ #
or M and p’s * ’) is necessary. At Pi. O. 1.92, 2.13, 10.48
* « #A)φ is the river’s stream.
399 $! 4« &8 : cf. 96.

Κ DB" : cf. 103n. That Hermes’ Κ) K5)-
is a cave and not a country-house or cottage is made clear at 401
(cf. LSJ Rev.Suppl., s.v. Κ)).
400 ‘Where the animals had been sheltered at night-time.’

π5 ‘where’ is Fick’s rearticulation of /# (), variously seg-
mented and accented in the MSS. This is the only occurrence of this ad-
verb in literature; however, we may compare $))/, / for
the ending. Homer has x/ (e.g. Il. 1.607, 3.326, 5.774, Od. 3.292, 6.94),
and Hsch. at ( 1022 transmits -/α ,18 and D/ is read at IG
VII 235.16 (a Sacred Law from Oropos; cf. Schwyzer I 621, Bechtel GD
III 236 §279, and Buck GD §132.3). Pace AS and Radermacher no firm
conclusions can be drawn about the Hymn’s provenance on the basis of
this adverb.
M’s Ρ/ must be a conflation of π/ and Ρ, its gloss.
3 5# $ is Chalcocondyles’ emendation of the un-
metrical / 7# $)) () and / 7 )) (M). The
18 This is bracketed by Latte; Schmidt ( 1024 prints _/ (sic).

Lines 398–403 491
sense here is ‘being taken care of’ or ‘sheltered’, pace LSJ s.v. II who
gloss ‘grow up, wax.’ $)) is used in Homer of animals gambolling,
cf. Il. 13.27 Ν)) ξ 7 K# C (cf. Mosch. 2.116). In post-
Homeric Greek it acquires the sense ‘rear, foster, nourish’ (hence
‘shelter’ here), as at Pi. fr. 214, S. Aj. 559, for which Homeric Greek uses
$)); cf. Il. 5.271 L« ξ !! « (= b«) Cμ« 3/
$))# λ φ9 (, Od. 15.174 ³« Ρ /
# D <# $))( λ
F ). The two verbs were confused in post-Homeric literature; see
Leumann (1927) and Debrunner (1907, 90).
5 = animals, is a unique usage in early poetry, where /

can be used of material goods in general (e.g. Od. 2.78, 2.103, 13.203).
For the sense ‘animal,’ cf. X. An. 5.2.4 (² « *" )) λ
Ν)) / 7), 7.8.12 ( ξ < R $
« 1 !«
λ / 7 )! $ C1«), and Hsch. / 710 / 7·
s« « 1 /
!, 7, "! 7; further Hdt. 1.136.1–2
!μ« /
, Kμ« /
and perhaps Call. Dian. 99–100 i «
λ )9
!# R « P ! | ! 1!« )φ«,
/ «.
μ« & —9 : cf. 67n., 155.
401 Ω 3 Ν : ’s , i.e. ‘alongside the cave’, is

the lectio difficilior and has been adopted by Gemoll, AHS, West, and
Richardson; cf. LSJ, s.v. C II 1. Radermacher printed M’s «,
while van Herwerden (1876) and (1888) emended to .
Ν is a novel combination, subsequently found at
Theoc. 7.149* and Mesom. 7.1. What the poet called an Κ)
K5) (103, 134, 399) is now merely a ‘stony cave.’
402 &« φ « &8 : for « φ« cf. 258*. For the turn of phrase, cf.
12 (F« φ*« Ν) with n. and h.Dem. 338 « φ«* <.
< - ;φ" : cf. 94n and 394.
403–404a $" +Ω & < « | 9 &# <) %:
‘looking to the side, Apollo noticed the cow-hides on the steep rock.’
403 ] C«: cf. 158n.

has $" , whereas M offers $, which is v.l. also
at Il. 5.445 and 8.10. AS rendered $ ‘apart’ (i.e. the hides,
492 Commentary
contrary to the cows, were outside the cave), while AHS rightly under-
stood here ‘looking aside,’ though in the parallel which they cite, Thgn.
1059, $ ² means ‘seeing from afar.’ We may compare
*!φ @ (‘looking to the side’) at Od. 17.304. LfgrE s.v. $
implausibly suggest taking $ with 9 ( # )") (i.e. the
hides were “getrennt von den Rindern,” apart from the cows to which
they belonged).
On Hermes’ treatment of the hides, cf. 124n. (where they are called
W). < « (cow-hide, sometimes a shield made of cow-hide) re-
places W1« here, while 9 ( # )") is used instead -
!φ)) λ 9 (. 9 ( # )") is a modification of a fre-
quent epic phrase, )"« ( (Il. 15.273, 15.618–19, 16.35, Od.
9.243, 10.87–88, 13.196, Hes. Th. 675, 786, h.Hom. 19.10; further
Thgn. 176, A. Supp. 351–52 [lyr.]), also found sometimes in prose (e.g.
X. An. 1.4.4, Luc. Tim. 26). )"« is generally understood as
‘high’/‘steep’ or ‘huge’ (probably also the meaning here as in Od.
9.243 *!!( )" ( ( 1 9 (!). Buttmann (1865,
II 156–62) derives it from * )*-"« = Ν"«; cf. Frisk and
Beekes s.v.
404b 5 # ; : M offers - , but F is the Homeric (Ionic)

form; cf. Il. 1.513, h.Dem. 63, Od. 9.251, 17.120, 20.137; Il. 5.756, 20.15,
24.361, Od. 13.127 (<-); Il. 21.508, Od. 7.21 ($-); cf. h.Herm. 328
$ φ ¹*.
' E : cf. 46n. Whereas earlier 1« was used ironi-
cally (cf. 150, 298, 316), here and at 571 Hermes is truly on the path to
obtaining honour.
405 &' % is found only here in early literature, and subsequently at X.

An. 1.6.7 and 7.5.5; see p. 45.
: )7(« appears again at Il. 1.540 (« # σ -
)
!φ !! ")«; of Zeus), while the Odyssey has
)*(« of Aegisthus and Klytaimestra (1.300, 3.198, 3.250, 3.308,
4.525, 11.422). In later poetry, it is used of abstract notions; e.g. A. Pers.
93 ()*( # $ ; lyr.), Supp. 750 ()<>7«). For
Hermes’ wiles, cf. 13 (¹)7(), 66, 76, 245, 282 ()φ «), 361.
'% < : (both simple and compound
with $*) is used of killing humans (Il. 18.336, 21.89, 21.555, 23.22,
Lines 404a–407 493
23.174, Od. 22.349) or animals (Od. 11.35), sometimes in a ritual con-

text. The sense is ‘cut the throat’ (or ‘decapitate’ at Hes. Th. 280 where
it is combined with $*; see West’s n.). Fernández-Galiano on Od.
22.328–29 points out that “it is not clear that and its com-
pound in $- always imply beheading.” Edwards on Il. 18.336–37
notes that was later associated with « ‘skin’ and was
understood as ‘flay’; however, his reference to LSJ does not yield any
relevant examples, and the only instance I was able to locate is
b(BC)TilIl. 18.336 $ 7!: κ « π $)* #
Ρ! .
Apollo does not know how Hermes had killed the cows (cf. 119n.);
thus he may assume that he had followed the regular procedure.
406 m ! μ« &Ω λ «: a hendiadys. In archaic poetry

*« occurs only here and at h.Dem. 141 (see Richardson’s n.);
subsequently it is found at Hdt. 2.2.2, A. Ag. 1163, E. El. 495, 1108, IT
1223, Ion 31, 280 etc., where it generally modifies a noun (e.g. « or
).
In his astonishment, Apollo cites the same characteristics that
Hermes had used in his defense: the infant god had predicted that no
one would believe that he as an infant was capable of accomplishing
what Apollo was accusing him of, and it is ironic that even Apollo, his
accuser, is led to a similar conclusion. (407) is a reaction that
Hermes had predicted at 270–72.
406–408 ‘I myself [already] admire your power henceforth; you don’t

need to grow for a long time [sc. in order to reach that power].’
407 " %: at 455* the poet used &. is found
again at h.Aphr. 84 and Anacr. 501.11; see Schulze, QE 236 for the form.
/"« is a common reaction at a god’s appearance; cf. 219n.
Stephanus emended to (and in this he was followed by
editors until Gemoll) on the grounds that does not accord
with the following *! (‘in the future’). But (i) Apollo as the god
of prophecy can already foresee Hermes’ future power and he therefore
admires/wonderes at it; cf. his request that Hermes swear an oath that
he will never steal anything from him in the future at 514–24; (ii) Apollo
appears in a state of wonderment elsewhere in the poem; cf. 196, 219,
494 Commentary
414, 455; thus should not be doubted here. Apollo admires,
and is baffled by, Hermes’ precocious power because it suggests that
when Hermes grows older he will be even more powerful, hence a
greater threat. There is therefore no reason to depart from the unani-
mous tradition.
Note Radermacher’s doubts regarding μ !μ «, which could
be also articulated as *! «.
: 5: a clausula also found 8x in the Iliad, 7x in the Odys-
sey, and at h.Dem. 82. Hermes answers this statement of Apollo’s at 494
using similar phraseology (C ! / κ | … &« /)-
!), as he does at 473 where he returns Apollo’s of 254.
407b–408a : 5κ | μ $8": because Hermes has al-
ready shown his precocious power. This phrase expresses Apollo’s ad-
miration (following ), but it can also be read as a threat, viz.
‘you ought not to grow (so as to become) more powerful.’ To material-
ize this threat, Apollo attempts to bind Hermes in the following verses
in a final attempt to thwart Hermes’ growth.
409–414a Apollo unsuccessfully attempts to bind Hermes

‘Thus he spoke, and he (sc. Apollo) twisted strong bonds of osiers around
his (sc. Hermes’) hands; but these suddenly took root in the soil of their
own accord, twisted/grafted into each other like off-shoots, easily, even
on all the field-dwelling cows, by the will of wit-stealing Hermes.’
This passage raises some questions: what is the antecedent of λ
() at 410? And whom or what Apollo attempts to bind, Hermes or the
cattle? / ! (409), furthermore, has been taken either as instrumental,
or locative, or an indirect object (see below). These uncertainties have
led scholars even to posit a lacuna between 409–10.
Matthiae 285, suggested that Apollo was trying to undo the osiers
with which Hermes had tied the legs of the cows as he led them from
Pieria (so already Ilgen), and took ! φ to mean flectere ‘bend’;
but nowhere has it been mentioned that Hermes had tied the cows to-
gether (not even in Ant.Lib. 23.3 where we read that Hermes <
ξ

« C »« μ« Q ! 8)(, ³« r F/( " $φ!9 (,
‘he tied branches at the tail of each animal so as to make the cows’
tracks disappear’), while there is no parallel for ! φ = flectere.
Lines 407–408, 409–414a 495
AS thought it “most improbable” that Apollo might have been

trying to tie the cattle and posited a lacuna between 409–10, which they
supplemented with the following verse:
! Ω« E

! )1!. AHS proposed that Apollo was trying to bind the
cattle so that they might not disappear again (cf. also Allen [1933, 52]).
Therefore, they altered their previous supplement to "« Q) «
!
Ω« ! )1!.
Baudy (1989) maintains that Apollo is trying to bind Hermes, but
then goes on to suggest that Hermes responds by creating a hedge
around the cows (“ein Zaun aus Keuschlamm-Zweigen,” p. 9; see also
p. 28 where it is added that Hermes thereby invents animal hus-
bandry). For Baudy this reflects Hermes’ function as a shepherd-god,
since he can protect the animals both inside the stable and outdoors.
She seeks support from ancient sources that mention the separation of
cows from bulls at certain intervals (p. 10–11, 40–41nn.: Colum.
6.24.1–2, 6.27.8, Gp. 17.3.1). However, there is no reference to a hedge
in the text: the withies grow on, not around, the cows (!9 (! #
$ 1)! "*!!), which renders this part of Baudy’s interpreta-
tion problematic. Besides, after his reconciliation with Apollo Hermes
mentions the prolific offspring of the cows at 493–94, from which we
get the impression that Hermes is not interested in keeping the male
apart from the female animals (cf. ! (). It will also be re-
membered that Hermes had stolen only female animals; therefore
there was no need for him to take measures so as to keep the animals
separate.
Similarly, Leduc (2001, 33) claims that Hermes kept the cows away
from the bull in order to deprive them of their use value (“valeur
d’usage”) that consisted in their ability to reproduce, and invest them
with exchange value (“valeur d’échange”) and convert them into a kind
of currency. The wording of 193 suggests however that Apollo had al-
ready kept them apart. Besides, the value of cattle as currency in an ex-
change society lies precisely on their reproductive power (as well as
their use in agricultural work and their production of milk).
The threat of binding Hermes who, it will remembered, is self-
bound by means of his swaddling-clothes, has been building up
throughout the poem: (i) Maia warned Hermes in her angry reproach
that Apollo might put him in fetters (157–59); (ii) when Apollo arrives
at the cave, he attempts to seize Hermes, who escapes only through his
496 Commentary
frivolous *«; (iii) this is the final and most concrete attempt to re-
strain the divine babe. Here we might also think of another cattle-thief,
Melampous, who was bound by Iphiclus; cf. Od. 11.292–93, 15.231–32,
[Hes.] fr. 37.4, V Od. 11.287.
Attempting to bind a god (no matter whether the perpetrator
knows that the intended victim is divine or not) is a familiar motif; cf. Il.
1.399–400, Il. 5.385–87, 15.19–20, h.Hom. 7.13–14; see Kuiper (1910,
43–44), Rudberg (1929), and Slatkin (1991, 66–69). Hermes’ bonds are
transformed into vegetation; for a similar spontaneous growth of vege-
tation, cf. h.Hom. 7.38–42 or the story of Dionysus and Lycurgus
(Gantz, 1993, 113–14). With this action, Apollo acknowledges once
more Hermes’ divine status: due to their immortality, gods can only be
controlled by being bound and restrained.
A somewhat remote parallel to Apollo’s attempt to bind Hermes
scene may be found in the binding of Ares statuettes attested in Boeo-
tia, Thrace, and Syedna; see Faraone (1991a).
Furthermore, the miracle narrated at 409–14 reflects Hermes’ as-
sociation with vegetation. Paus. 2.31.10 transmits λ E
«
! P)1« )1«. μ« 1) )
$) μ W*)
φ! H )α – _ (‘wild olive-tree’) –
ξ Ρ) ! φ 9
9

λ $")!(! (‘shot up’) σ«
λ 3! ² *« φ Ω« 3. With E
« )1«, cf. 5A «
)!, #A! )(μ« $(«. Eitrem (1909b) explains this cult-epi-
thet from )-)1«; see also Pritchett (1998, I 264–65) for a survey
of the various explanations proposed. The scene may also recall Hermes’
role as /«, mentioned in the curse-tablets; see Brown (1947, 13 n.
19) and Faraone (1991b, 6, 14). Hermes /« replies to Apollo’s at-
tempt to bind him with a double counter-bind: he first binds Apollo’s
cows with the withies, then Apollo himself by means of his song.
Finally, Yalouris (1953–54, 171–73) proposes that a Corinthian
crater (late 7th c.) now in the Louvre (E 633; fig. 6) reflects Apollo’s at-
tempt to bind Hermes. A male figure wearing a petasos and a short
tunic, hands tied behind his back, is pursued by another male figure,
bearded, naked, and holding a staff; in front of them there are five cows.
Given that Apollo does not succeed in restraining Hermes, who man-
ages to cover the entire area with osiers, we should not speak of a reflec-
tion of the Hymn’s episode, but rather perhaps of a reflection of a ver-
sion of the story in which Apollo tied Hermes’ hands. While the motif
Lines 409–414a, 409–412 497
may be considerably old, this would not contribute anything to the dis-
cussion of the poem’s date.
409 5 = Hermes’ hands, an object as Baudy (1989, 1 n. 1) observes.

3 : cf. 157n.
410 Ν! : = vitex agnus castus; see Billerbeck (1972, 163–64), Polunin

and Huxley (1976, 177) no. 394, Polunin (1980, 387) no. 1087, Baum-
ann (2007, 44–45) with image 67. Through folk-etymologizing its name
was linked to 4*« ‘pure’ and chastity; cf. Dsc. 1.103.3 %*! ξ
Ν« μ « « >!φ « 41!« « «
K*! /
! C9
· )1« ξ μ λ « W"« C
«
Κ; Frisk, s.v. and Borengässer (1998). It was also considered
ideal for creating fetters, cf. Athen. 671f; see further, Il. 11.104–10, Od.
9.427–29, 10.166–69, and Baudy (1989, 2 n. 5). Ν« was also used in
medicine (Dsc. 103.2–3). Elsewhere, it is called )1« (Il. 11.105, Od.
9.427 [! φ!! )1!], 10.166).
λ () has an understood Ν as its antecedent, instead of
!, as we would expect.
Dμ : i.e. Hermes’ feet.
411 :" = sua sponte, ‘on their own accord’; cf. LSJ s.v. I 2 and Ad-
rados s.v. I.
*&< & $9 : ")( occurs only
here; but ")) (and cognates) may be used of grafting (cf. LSJ s.v.
")) A8), while it means ‘plant’ at Thphr. CP 3.11.5, 3.23.1, IG
XII, 7 62.29 (cf. 90n.). For the formation, cf. $")(, which is in
fact a v.l. here (M), probably due to 426.
412 G) λ 9 &# $!' < : Hermann emended

to W# Ν, because the combination of an adverb (W) and an
adjective (!9 (!) seemed problematic. Gemoll defended the trans-
mitted text, comparing with Hes. Th. 87, which however has been
emended by Schoemann to ρ5 λ «. There is no reason
to emend here: !9 (! belongs to an adverbial (prepositional) phrase,
is adverbial (= ‘even’, i.e. the withies not only took root in the soil,
they even covered the cows as well), and W looks back to ρ5 of
410 (i.e. the osiers took root quickly and easily).
498 Commentary
413 E) % < 9 Bφ «: the genitive E is also found
at h.Aphr. 148*, Hdt. 2.51.1, 2.67.1, 2.138.4, 2.145.4, 5.7, Theoc. 25.4.
But cf. Il. 15.214 (E ), Od. 12.390, 15.319, h.Hom. 19.1
(E ).
Bφ% recurs at Greg. Naz. Carm. I 9.13 (Migne 37 col. 457.12
W7<« # C > )5φ ")7) and Man. 1.93
( )5φ W1). Zumbach 21 posits that it was formed by false
analogy to )5«, which however is not attested until Nonn.
D. 8.47 etc. For the idea, cf. Archil. 191.3 )5« !(<>
4)« φ « and E. Tr. 682 Cξ ) φ « (hence
)5φ = ‘wit-stealing’ or ‘deceiving one’s wit’ here). ) and
φ « are mentioned closely to each other (though not construed
together) at Hes. Op. 55 / « )5« λ « φ « -
1!«. Elsewhere, compounds beginning with )5- mean secret/
illicit (e.g. )5«, )5 («, )5φ«, )5 « in
Hsch., )5* «, )5/)«).
The poet could have used E Q ( * from Od.
15.319. But )5φ (‘wit-stealing’) is motivated by the following
musical performance of Hermes, in which Apollo will forget his anger
and his attention will be directed to the acquisition of the lyre; he will
exchange his fifty cows for the lyre, whose fabrication had no cost for
Hermes. Cf. the exchange of armours between Glaucos and Diomedes
in Iliad 6 and the poet’s comment at 6.234–36 3# σ f)1 )
K (« φ « <) Z1«, | χ« μ« TU( :7 1/#
Ν" | / ! /) , ' *"# ". To be sure, our
verse has formulaic precedents: cf. Hes. Op. 79 :μ« ")9
! "-
1; further, Il. 13.524, h.Dem. 9 (:μ« ")9
![]), Hes. Th. 730
")9
! :μ« φ)( .
414a "' $"«: on Apollo’s constant state of wonderment,

see 343n.; on $ 7!«, see 29n.
414b–435 Hermes reveals his lyre and performs a theogony

Hermes performs his second song, which is divided into two sections,
a cosmogonic and a theogonic, its general structure resembling that of
Hesiod’s Theogony. He begins from Mnemosyne, the mother of the
Muses (429–30), he then sings of the earth (cosmic element), and finally
Lines 413–414a, 414b–435 499
of the gods’ birth and their acquisition of divine honours (428); cf.
Pucci (2007, 81–82). All the gods are presented in order of seniority,
which implies that Hermes’ performance must culminate with his own
birth and praise, as Shelmerdine (1984, 205) and Clay Politics 139–40
observe. With this self-praise Hermes intends to establish his legitimacy
as a member of the Olympian pantheon; see Stoddard (2004, 91), who
is not right however to posit that at 436 Apollo is essentially asking
whether Hermes is a god: he has realized that already; cf. 255–56n.
Apollo is enchanted by the novel sound of the lyre, before even
Hermes begins to sing (cf. 422–23; Hermes begins the song at 426).
While the sound of the lyre is described in terms reminiscent of song
rather than instrumental music (cf. Aloni [1981, 39–40]), it would go
too far to claim with Kaimio (1974, 107) that “the poet simply could
not express instrumental music in words.”
The poet uses erotic vocabulary to describe Hermes’ music and
song, as well as their effect on Apollo: 421 ( 7 … 7), 422 () L«
b «), 423 ( μ &), 426 ( 7 … φ7), 434 (3 « …
$7/«); cf. Görgemanns (1976, 122) and Kaimio (1977, 106–108).
There is a clear progression from the ) L« b « that the lyre’s novel
sound exerts on Apollo’s mind to the 3 « … $7/« that seizes him
once he hears the actual song. For the erotic vocabulary that describes
the effects of music, cf. the Muses’ names in Hesiod (probably the poet’s
invention; see West on Hes. Th. 32), Hes. Th. 8 (¹ *« / 1«),
104 (¹ *!! $7), and 64 where Himeros is said to dwell beside
the Muses, h.Hom. 10.5, and Alcm. 27.
Finally Hermes’ song as reported by the poet presents many repeti-
tions: 423 ~ 425 ~ 433 ( μ & ~ )« & ~
) &); 427 ~ 432 ($« 1« ~ $-
« … 1«), 428 ~ 431 (³« … λ ³« … λ ³«), 428 ~ 429 (
~ ), 428 ~ 430 (³« )/ ~ )/), 428 ~ 431 ( λ ³« )/
Q !« ~ λ ³« ! Q !«), 429 ~ 432 ( ~
), 430 ~ 432 (M« K* ~ :μ« $)μ« ¹*«). These in-
terconnections give the impression that Hermes’ song is a tighter com-
position (compared to the first song which appears to be more linear
and is finally led off course), while the attention to order and seniority
is especially emphasized.
This scene has been imitated by A.R. 1.494–518: a quarrel is about
to erupt among the Argonauts, when Orpheus takes up his lyre and per-
500 Commentary
forms a song whose theme is cosmogonic and theogonic. Although this

is not expressly stated, as it is in our Hymn, Orpheus’ song seems to fol-
low the proper chronological order of the events he is narrating. The
song immediately puts an end to the quarrel, just as Hermes’ song leads
to the reconciliation of the two brothers. Besides the general resem-
blance in the situation, there are some verbal parallels, which have been
pointed out on p. 114.
414b–416 ‘Then indeed the mighty Slayer of Argos looked at the ground,
with his eyes downcast, desiring to hide his shining eye-glances.’
414b 4« #A!φ «: cf. 296 where Hermes forces Apollo to set
him free. In what follows, Hermes will show his « in the domain
of music.
415 D < occurs once in Homer (Il. 1.292, μ # Ν # K")7(

" « #A/))1«), where it means ‘by way of interrupting,’ and
it is found again at A.R. (= ‘in reply’) in the phrases K")7( 3«
(Κ (1.699) and K")7( ! (3.400 and 3.1119). Here it
is not related to speech but to vision, as it qualifies ! 5 (‘sur-
veyed, examined’). Its derivation from K-")) suggests the sense
‘downcast’; cf. (φ7«/ 7φ (explained as )1( ")
! in Plu. 528e).
415b–416a $' | &!'B 6«: there are two issues

here: (i) a textual problem regarding the form of $ 1!!; and (ii)
what exactly does Hermes try to conceal?
(i) All MSS at 415 offer $ 1!!, which is suspect since
$ 1!! is intransitive in archaic poetry; cf. 278n. Its transitive use
is very late: cf. Q.S. 8.29 ρ« # $<>φ # -
| #H)« ((μ λ /* $ 1!!, Nonn. D. 5.485
)(« ξ | Sφ)L« $ !! L« $@« F)(,
and 15.165 ³« [ f)1 )"Ω $ !! /(« |
$φ« ! !! $! :7(«, where it means ‘dazzle.’
Therefore Lohsee (1872, 48) emended to $ 1!!, a suggestion that
is in keeping with archaic usage and helps with the second question
in this passage (and is thus superior to Martin’s emendation 1 #
$ 1!!, followed by Ilgen); see also Càssola ad loc.
Lines 414b–435, 414b–416a 501
(ii) The second question has received various answers. Those who
keep $ 1!! must either posit a lacuna after 415 or supply an ob-
ject to 15. Thus Martin, Baumeister, Radermacher, AHS, and
West (2003a) resorted to positing a lacuna. AHS proposed the supple-
ment "* ) 3 )) " λ (*, understanding
that Hermes wished to hide the cows’ meat; however, in their note on
135 they mention that Hermes had placed the meat up high inside the
cave (which of course Apollo never enters)! West assumes a lacuna of
several lines after 416, during which Apollo must have exclaimed
something to the effect of ‘Oh! You have captured my cows after all.
Now you will have to pay me heavy compensation if you want to pla-
cate me.’ But Apollo has not been in any doubt as to who was the
thief since line 214. Matthiae and Hermann assumed that "*« must
have been mentioned in what dropped out; but attempting to bind
the cows would be against the sense of the text, since Hermes just re-
vealed them, and we have been told that the will of Zeus had per-
suaded him.19 Gemoll and Radermacher thought that Hermes was
trying to hide the lyre; but this too is not supported by the text since
Hermes is about to perform on the lyre. Even more curious is
Schmitt’s (1856, 156) idea that Hermes, afraid of his angry brother,
was trying to hide himself.
Richardson, reading $ 1!! at 415 and without positing a
lacuna takes / as the object of 15 @«, understanding
that Hermes intended to hide the entire area under the osiers. This is
the only way to construe the text if we keep it as transmitted. But if
Hermes is indeed intending to cover the ground with osiers, it is odd that
he changes his mind so quickly and performs on the lyre instead (418ff.).
It is thus preferable to accept Lohsee’s $ 1!! and take as
the object of 15. But this leads to another question: what sort
of fire does Hermes attempt to conceal? Clay Politics 137 n. 133 takes
$ 1!! to be the fire that Hermes had kindled earlier when
he was roasting the meat; he is now trying to hide it out of embarrass-
ment that Apollo may find out about his previous doubts concerning
his divine nature. But at 140 Hermes had extinguished the fire by cover-
ing it with soil, and the text here merely says that ‘he surveyed the space.’
19 Martin (1605, 37) supplied s λ !9

(! # $ )9

! (sic) "*!!.
502 Commentary
Following Ludwich 128, I believe that $ 1!! refers to

Hermes’ glance (though he does not take with 15; see
above); cf. already Ilgen (1796, 430) ad 279 “tum Argicida vultum in
terra defixit, quo crebros [reading 1 # $ 1!!] oculorum micatus
(qui testes essent nequitiae) occultare posset” and Zanetto (1996, 276).
For the idea that fire emanates from the eyes, see 45n. $ 1!! and
cognates often refer to the glance; cf. EM p. 77.29–30 $ 1!! λ
$ λ $ «α !( « Sφ) )5« (cf.
EGen 589), Hes. Th. 826–27 (quoted at 278n.), Sappho 16.18
( $ / ) F( !@), h.Herm. 45 (ν Ρ (!
$# Sφ) $ ), 278 ( μ $μ ")φ $ 1!!),
A.R. 3.288, 3.1018–19, Opp. C. 3.90 etc. At 43–46 the fiery look was as-
sociated with speed of action, and Hermes’ fiery glance here implies
that he is up to something new: he is about to produce the lyre and per-
form an arresting song. Hermes has evidently learned his lesson since
the last time his eyes were said to flash (278); then he did not attempt to
conceal his glance, and Apollo noticed it and seized him. To prevent
Apollo from noticing that Hermes has a new plan of some sort (and
thus from trying to stop him), the divine child lowers his eyes.
1 is found once again in archaic hexameter, at Od. 5.488
³« # Ρ « )μ !9
5 )9 (, of concealing fire with
the intention of preserving it (cf. 450 ! μ« !) @&).
416b ] « # & « ¹«: cf. 176 and 189.
417 G) # & J< : on G) (), see 351n. Hermes

calms Apollo’s anger easily, just as he thwarted his attempt to bind him
(412).
n is not found in Homer but occurs at Hes. Th. 254 (W
( [sc. « $]) and Op. 797. Hermes easily placates
Apollo through the following song; for song’s power to cause forgetful-
ness of one’s cares, cf. Hes. Th. 99–103.
³« 0"# :« indicates that Hermes’ actions follow a precon-
ceived plan
418 λ & : see 386n. Even though Apollo is strong
( *«), he is softened by Hermes ( 7). Notice that at 414
Hermes was presented as 1«.
Lines 414b–416a, 416b–421 503
5 # &# $3 5«: the MSS offer )"Ω # #

$ ! / *« () and )"Ω # # $ ! )1 ( (M), which is
unmetrical. ’s reading is problematic: an object is necessary both for
)"@ and for 7& in the following line. In addition to the mis-
sing object of )"@, in our Hymn # $ ! / *« is always pre-
ceded by the mention of the lyre. I therefore suggest /), which is
supported by 153 /) κ # $ ! / μ« . Ste-
phanus proposed )1 ( # # $ ! / *«. The corruption may
have arisen by the influence of 499 ( ξ) )"Ω # $ !
/ *«, and M’s reading represent an attempt to heal this problem,
)1 ( having been supplied from 423. Hermann, accepting )"@, po-
sited another lacuna here, but this is unnecessary if /) (or Ste-
phanus’ )1 () is adopted.
For &# $3 5«, see 153n.
419–420: See 53–54n.

At 419 (as at 501) the MSS offer )«; but as at 53, Hermes is
testing the lyre ‘one string after the other’ to ascertain whether it was
well tuned; hence « is in order here (so Càssola, following
Barnes); see Kaimio (1974, 31–32).
420 is strongly reminiscent of Od. 17.542 ($φλ ξ ) | ! )

"(!α )!! ξ P()* (following Telemachus’ sneeze);
cf. [Hes.] Sc. 116–17 (! ξ "( H )(( | ) (7!«.
At 281, where Apollo laughs, assuming his superiority over Hermes
whom he attempts to seize; here he laughs out of joy (421 (7!«),
as a result of his exposure to the new instrument. For Halliwell (2008,
15 n. 35) Apollo’s laughter is “an instinctively joyous response to (and
almost antiphonal echo of) the sound of the lyre.”
421 & … +%: cf. Od. 17.261–62 (7 … φ* «). 7 is the
lyre’s clear and loud sound; cf. 425 )« & and Kaimio
(1977, 44).
… ?"(): an extension of Homeric usage, according to which
) is employed of an object (usually a missile) piercing a person’s
body; e.g. Il. 22.327, 23.876, Od. 19.453, 22.16. A voice is said to reach
‘around’ one’s φ «; cf. Il. 10.139 μ # ρ5 λ φ « -)# 7
and Od. 17.261–62 λ !φ« -)# 7 | φ* « )φ
«.
504 Commentary
422 is transmitted only by M, but it should by no means be considered

spurious, as it is necessary for construing μ $ &. The
omission in the other MSS may have arisen from the repetition of
7/ * at 421 and 423 as AHS suggest.
"« & «: cf. h.Apol. 360* where this phrase is used of
Pytho’s death (A.R. 4.147* has π9 ( 9
). !!« is used of
song at Il. 2.599–600 ($κ | !!(), Pi. N. 9.7–8 (!! #
| 1/« $ *!φ «), I. 4.55–57 (quoted at 52n.).
& is used of the sound of the pan-pipes (512; cf. Il. 10.13 where
the 7 of the auloi and pan-pipes is contrasted with the Ρ« of
the humans), but it can also designate the sound of a stringed instru-
ment (cf. E. Ion 882 « ). Elsewhere, it signifies the battle-
din (Il. 12.35, 16.246), the cries of an attacking host (Il. 3.2), the cries of
lament (Il. 24.160), or voice in general (Od. 10.147). Cf. also E. Ba. 159
d ! "« ! and A.R. 1.27 $ 9
.
!4« e «: i.e. ‘sweet desire’ for the lyre. This formula often
designates purely erotic desire; cf. Il. 3.446 = 14.328 ³« ! 3
) L« b « ¹ , 3.139, h.Aphr. 2, 45, 53, 143, Archil. 188.3,
A.R. 1.850. But already in archaic poetry it can mean any strong desire;
cf. Od. 22.500–501 μ ξ ) L« b « 9 D | ) λ !-
/
«, Pi. O. 3.33–55 ) L« b « 3!/ |
λ * (‘the post of the race-course that has been “bent,”
i.e. doubled, twelve times’) | b φ!.
422–423 !4« e « F 9 | " : West (1966b, 149) em-

ends the transmitted ) to *, which restores the usual epic con-
struction; cf. Chantraine, GH II 42 (§ 51B); cf. Il. 3.35 τ/ *« s)
«, 16.805 μ # Ν( φ « s), and h.Herm. 434 μ # 3 « …
F *. But note that T « # Ν/« 3))" ) was read by
Il. 14.475 and Eust. Il. p. 998 (III 679).
Til
423 $ @ is elsewhere found in the middle: cf. Od. 9.7 and 13.9
where it is used of banqueters listening to a bard; at Il. 4.343 it means
‘invite someone to the feast.’ At Hp. Morb. 2.61 (VII 94) it is a technical
term (= ‘examine by auscultation’; perhaps $ &9 ( should be read?
Cf. Hp. Morb. 2.47 [VII 70]). Besides h.Herm, the active form is men-
tioned only in the grammarians and lexicographers (Eust. Od. II 49
[= p. 1741]).
Lines 422–426 505
'9 # &μ "@% : )1 ( is not attested in Homer, Hesiod,

or elsewhere in the Hymns; at 153, 242, and 418 the poet used /)«, a
word designating both the animal and the musical instrument made
from its shell (cf. also 32 and 52n. on Ν ). From this point on
« will be used (cf. 499). Some ancient sources draw a distinction
between the )1 and the «: Luc. DDeor. 11.4 (quoted on p. 98),
Bion Id. 5.8, Paus. 5.14.8 (E
)1 «, #A*)) ξ K κ ρ
« E))7 !λ « CL« )*«). See 64n.
"@ is a generic term for ‘performing on a stringed instru-
ment.’ It is elsewhere coupled with φ* < (Il. 18.569, h.Apol. 515,
[Hes.] Sc. 202–3), with )1 (X. Smp. 3.1, Arist. Pol.1332a26), and may
also be used absolutely (h.Apol. 202 [ &], h.Herm. 17).
424 G# Ρ ! … &# $: i.e. Apollo is on the right hand side, a
place of honour (see also below). The repetition of # $ ! from
418 is not due to the poet’s carelessness as AS suggested: at 418 the poet
conveys a technical detail (the lyre is held with the left hand); here we
learn about Hermes’ position in relation to Apollo. On the repetitions
in Hermes’ song, see the introductory note above, p. 499.
"«: Hermes has courage now that he has softened Apollo
through the sound of the lyre (cf. 417, 420–23).
M « ¹«: see 1n.
425 !%« "@% : )1« (and cognates) often describe song or

voice in general; cf. Il. 1.248, Alcm. 28, Alc. 347b.2; and Il. 9.186
φ* )9 (, Sapph. 58.12 (quoted on p. 263), Bacch. 5.73
… ) )
, and Kaimio (1977, 231–33). On &, see
423n. An echo of this may be found in Theod. II Lascaris, Epist. 74.16,
p. 101 Festa (π« # ³« E , )« )«).
426 !'# $< : ‘Hermes began to sing again.’

( 1! is not attested in Homer, but we find cognates at Il.
4.437
« (= voice) and Od. 12.187 )( … R (= the Sirens’
song); cf. )( $7 at h.Apol. 519 (the gift of the Muses) and
h.Hom. 19.18 (the nightingale’s lament). The basic meaning seems to be
‘announce, communicate’ (“verkünden” in LfgrE) and it is found at
Hes. Th. 28 (of the Muses) where it is contrasted to 51 … ),
and Op. 260 (( 1[] = ‘complain’). Hesiod does not seem to use it
506 Commentary
as a poetic word since it is co-ordinated with ) (see West on Th.

28), but ( 1 is found frequently in lyric and tragedy where it must
have had an epic feel. S. Ichn. 250 7 ! ! C[] refers to
Hermes’ performance.
$< : $")7 and its cognates are now explained by Egan
(2006): in all the hexameter passages where these terms appear (Il.
22.476, Od. 1.155, 8.266, 17.262–63, h.Herm. 425–26, Theoc. 6.20,
[Theoc.] 8.71, Nonn. D. 1.478, 19.100–102, 24.242), a sense of resump-
tion or recommencement is present; “the primary semantic ingredient
of $")( and $")) is neither vocality nor instrumental-
ity but the notion of a delayed or postponed performance” (p. 61). The
performer’s song is offered either as a response to a preceding song by
someone else or as the continuation of an interrupted performance of
one’s own. Egan offers the following summary of the semantic develop-
ment of $")7(, $")(, $")(: “following, subject to,
or conditioned by a delay, postponement, deferral, interval commonly
in a musico-poetic sense, i.e. following, subject to, or conditioned by a
musical or poetic $")7, i.e. by a prelude, prologue, interval or prior
utterance; anew, afresh” (p. 68). Cf. Pagliaro (1961, 41–52), who, while
considering $")7 as the central (narrative) part of the nomos or the
dithyramb (= Sφ)*«), took $")7/$"))! to have an
inceptive meaning (‘begin to …’; p. 46).
The ancient sources offer various interpretations of terms related
to $")7, which are generally followed by modern interpreters. The
Scholiast on Pi. N. 10.33 (4 ξ $") | )« λ«
#A Sφλ | @!) explains $« 9
φ9
λ ) « (= ‘with a loud and clear voice’)α ν $") $-

*, μ ")« (‘ante-prelude’) )! μ
… ξ« ξ μ $")( 8« $ 1!, Ρ λ«
ξ (! P7, C φ<
« , $)) $")(,
! $")
« « (« <1 (= ‘with some interval
occurring between [his victories]’). The latter may be the meaning of
$")7( at Il. 22.476 (π # λ σ 3 λ « φ « μ«
( | $")7( *! T ) 9
! 3) according to LSJ,
s.v. who gloss ‘with sudden bursts’; Richardson ad loc., however,
renders ‘with deep sobs,’ while Apollon.Soph. 26.28–29 p. 26 Bekker
glosses s $")(, $μ (so also Eust. Il. IV 658
[p. 1281]).
Lines 426–427 507
$")7 is not attested before Pindar (P. 1.4), but Homer has
$"))!: Od. 1.155 - ² φ & $")) )μ
$, 8.266 (C ² φ & …), and 17.262 λ !φ« -)#
κ | φ* « )φ
«α $ !φ! "))# $ | d7«. In
all these Odyssean examples $"))! is connected to lyre-play-
ing. But in h.Herm. $")( qualifies ( 1(), and this implies
that Hermes’ $")7 consisted of both instrumental play and song.
At a later stage, the dithyrambic $")7 appears to be a type
of instrumental piece that precedes the soloist’s or the chorus’ song
or a musical interlude that lacks strophic responsion; see Comotti
(1989), West (1992, 205), and Dunbar on Ar. Av. 1383–85. Arist. Rh.
1409a24–29 associates the dithyrambic $")7 with the )<« -
(, ‘running style’ (κ ξ )< $ ( ρ ν ( λ )
!!) , —! ¹ « "« $") …) and at-
tributes long $") to Melanippides. Since the bulk of our in-
formation on $")7 is related to later dithyramb, it may not necess-
arily apply to earlier rhapsodic poetry. We should make allowance for
the possible shift in meaning of the musical terminology (cf. prélude in
classical music).
$")( is found at Il. 21.364 ³« ξ )"(« & 3
*« λ ))) | !( )*« 4) φ« !)
| $")( and Hdt. 4.181.3, where it refers to hot or boil-
ing water that bubbles up (cf. Polem.Hist. fr. 83 [III p. 140 Müller] s
! ¹ &* $")( K).
&κ ¹ Z φ% (lit. ‘and lovely was the voice that fol-
lowed for him’, i.e. from him) is parenthetic; cf. 48n. The structure of
this phrase has formulaic parallels: cf. Od. 6.164 ()L« 3!
)*«, though 3) is transmitted by d1), parodied by Matro SH
534.3 (= fr. 1.3 Olson-Sens) )L« 3! )*«, and Hes. Th.
418 ())κ ¹ 3! 7; cf. fr. 141.18). The emendation pro-
posed by West (1966b, 150) to κ ¹ 3), comparing Il. 14.400
(3) φ7), Od. 17.57 (9
# Ν « 3) «), and h.Aphr.
130 (3)# $ (), is not necessary in view of 440, Il. 8.140 _ C
@! « Ρ :μ« C/ Q# $) 7, and Od. 20.237 (« /#, b(
κ 1« λ / « Q; cf. LfgrE, s.v. Q 4b.
427 % : ‘completing’ and not simply ‘singing’. The meaning

) or $ was proposed by Maurophrydes (1858, 346) and
508 Commentary
adopted by AS/AHS; cf. Hsch. 3923 !α !. LfgrE, s.v.

() I 2 gloss ‘sing with divine authority’. Deriving from
(<*krāsn·-yō), it means ‘complete’ (thus Frisk, s.v. : “[einem
Unternehmen] das Haupt aufsetzen,” ‘to conclude an undertaking’)
and, when used intransitively, ‘to be the head of something.’
reflects the Indo-European notion of the identification of
poet, seer, and herald; see Nagy (1990a, 59–61) and (1990b). Benveniste
(1969, II 35–42) proposes that the primary meaning is “the god’s ac-
ceptance of the wish formulated by the human and the divine authori-
sation granting the accomplishment of the wish” (p. 37); hence it may
have the sense of ‘accomplish, effect.’ Since Hermes’ song ends with his
own birth and prerogatives, it essentially creates and completes the di-
vine world, and ‘bring to completion, fulfill’ points to this; cf.
Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1424, Benveniste, op. cit., p. 40 who renders “pro-
meut à l’existence,” and Jaillard (2007, 199–204). Interestingly, some
ancient sources attribute to Hermes a role in creation (e.g. Pl. Prt. 322c;
cf. Aesop, Fab. 102, 108 = p. 361, 363 Perry; the hexameter poem on
cosmogony in Heitsch GDRK I p. 82–85 = P.Arg. 481r presents Hermes
as the creator of the cosmos).
For the idea that the divine singer’s birth culminates and adorns (or
sets in order) the cosmos, cf. Aristid. Kξ W(
« 2.420 = II p. 106
Jebb ( :μ« ) L« L« C1« φ(! (sc. Pindar)
:*«, F ,
! 7!! « K) 1«,
b« ) ’ 3 λ »! κ ! κ
{ } !7!! )*« λ ! 9
), Pucci (1998, 31–35), and
Clay (2003, 65).
is found again at 559, where Apollo explains to Hermes
the operation of the bee-oracle; see n. ad loc. and p. 18–22 for its impli-
cations for the poet’s concept of poetry.
Finally, we have here an instance of the poeta creator motif, accord-
ing to which the poet is said to be doing what he describes as being
done; see Lieberg (1982), Henderson on Ar. Lys. 188, Courtney on Juv.
1.162, and Cairns (1972, 252 n. 6). Lieberg (1982, 2) points out that this
motif is not merely a rhetorical topos but “the expression of a perhaps
partly unconscious knowledge concerning an important function of the
poetic activity, … an activity which is explained from the originally
magical character of poetry.”
$" « " 4« λ !) & : one expects (1« #
Lines 427–428 509
$ @« after $« 1«; cf. Hes. Th. 588, h.Herm. 10;
further, Il. 5.442, Od. 24.64, Hes. Th. 272, 302 (() $# $
( # $ @, [Hes.] fr. 1.7, h.Dem. 11, h.Hom. 29.2
$ /λ / ’ $ @. The verse reveals
that Hermes’ song is going to be both cosmogonic and theogonic, simi-
lar to Hesiod’s; cf. Hes. Th. 108–13 (quoted below).
& describes the Underworld at Od. 24.106 *« -
κ 3 and Hes. Th. 334
« 1! («; cf. E. Heracl.
218–19 6A # <7 / | !*. This sug-
gests that in Hermes’ song earth is not conceived of as the provider of
nourishment but as a geological body with mythological significance, as
in Hesiod. Elsewhere, *« refers to night (Od. 11.606, Hes. Th. 744,
758, Stesich. 185.3), the aegis (Il. 4.167, [Hes.] Sc. 444), a storm (Il.
12.375, 20.51; cf. Ibyc. 286.11), a rumor (S. Ant. 700), or blood (A. Ag.
1390, S. Aj. 376). 7 is a metrically convenient alternative for
) (cf. Il. 2.699, 15.715, Od. 11.365 Hes. Th. 69 etc.)
428 ³« 3 - ! signals the opening of theological/theo-

gonic texts; cf. Od. 8.266–68 C ² φ & $")) )μ
$ | $φ# 5A « φ)*(« !φ # #Aφ («, | ³«
# (! Hφ! *!, Hes. Th. 108–13 F # ³«
λ λ | λ λ λ *« $ «
F | Ν! )* λ C μ« C L« 8 α
| … | —« # Νφ« !! λ ³« « ), | ξ λ ³«
)1/ 3!/ 5O).
λ ³« 5 ) Z « can refer to both the division of
wealth among the gods and the distribution of fields of influence; cf.
Hes. Th. 108–13 (quoted above); Il. 15.189–92 / ξ -
!, Q !« # 3
«α | _ Ω 3)/ )κ Ϊ)
| )), #A(« # 3)/ &*φ *, | ZL« #
3)/# C μ C L λ φ)9 (!, h.Dem. 85–87 with Ri-
chardson’s nn. $φλ ξ κ | 3))/ ³« / !μ«
1/(α | « 3))/ « ρ, h.Hom. 29.3
Q ( $ 3)/« !"(U 7, A. Eu. 4–5, [Orph.] H. 17.7,
18.6, A. 2. Some of the Hymns, being essentially theogonic texts, nar-
rate the birth of the gods and their acquisition of divine honours; see
R. Parker (1991, 2–3) and Furley (2011b).
510 Commentary
429–430 M ' … | M % : Mnemosyne as the

Muses’ mother appears already at Hes. Th. 53–54 (with West’s n.) and
915–17; cf. further Alcm. 8.9, Eumel. 16, Solon 13.1–2 (parodied by
Crat. 359 SH), Pi. I. 6.74–75, fr. 52f.54–56, Pl. Tht. 191d, Lyr.Adesp.
fr. 20.1–3 (p. 191 CA; entitled M(!1(), [Apollod.] 1.3 (= I 13),
[Plu.] 9e, Luc. Salt. 36 [Orph.] H. 76.1–2, 77.1–2, AP 7.8.5–6 (= Anti-
pater, HE 232–33). Plu. 743d records that the Muses were called M
in Chios; cf. Paus. 9.29.2 ¹ ξ #A)« « $ *
M1!« *! ρ « λ S* C« 3 M)(
λ M7( λ $7, and Hdn. Epim. p. 86 Boissonade where Mne-
mosyne is the name of a Muse; at h.Hom. 25 an etymological pun on
the Muses’ name and 9 7! ! is likely; see Calame (2011, 346).
Mimn. FGrH 578 F 5 (= Paus. 9.29.4) knew two groups of Muses,
the older being daughters of Ouranos, the younger ones of Zeus; and
E. Med. 833–34 makes the Muses daughters of Harmonia. On the vari-
ous traditions regarding the number and parentage of the Muses, see
Mayer (1933, 688–91).
A link between Hermes and (!1( (though not the goddess) is
attested in a metrical inscription found on the Athenian Acropolis near
the Propylaea (Raubitschek 295 = CEG I 230; ca. 500 BC?):
h [ R *] | Ν) [ R μ«] | / R [ R 3]|
O[*"]|« R Λ /« R []|!1« R h[ ].
Furley (2011a, 166) observes that the primary meaning of (!1(«
Q is presumably ‘as a memorial,’ but adds that “one wonders
whether Oenobius was not also thanking Hermes for assisting his
powers of memory, an essential skill for a professional herald.”
429 For the poet’s beginning from Mnemosyne and the Muses, cf. He-
siod’s ‘Hymn to the Muses’ in his Theogony, Eumelus, Solon (both cited
above), and Pl. Euthd. 275d.
&! $ 9 : for honouring through singing, cf. 60n. At 60
Hermes was said to ‘honour’ (with his first song) the furnishings of
Maia’s cave; by praising his dwelling, he was indirectly praising himself as
well. In his second song, the theogony, Hermes still ends by praising him-
self, but first he honours the other gods, in order of seniority; cf. above,
p. 6–7. For $7 functioning as the gods’ «, cf. Theoc. 22.223.
&! is guaranteed here and at 432; cf. 60 where Ilgen restored
the augment.
Lines 429–431 511
430 π !3 5 M « ¹ : ‘for she had obtained Maia’s son as her
lot,’ a parenthetic clause. 5 suggests that Hermes rightfully be-
longed to Mnemosyne, who appears to be his patron deity as a singer.
Cf. Ar. Ec. 999 κ #Aφ (, D # 3)/ )( ( (with
Ussher’s n.). For )/ indicating a god’s rightful possession, cf.
Pi. O. 9.15–16, 14.1–4, N. 11.1, fr. 165.2, Bacch. 13.186–89 (with
Maehler’s n.), Call. Ap. 43, Alciphr. 3.13.1, and Perpillou (1996, 185).
At the same time, )/ picks up )/ of 428: the song of how the gods
obtained their domains and their lot begins with Mnemosyne who thus
received the first ‘lot,’ i.e. Hermes! (cf. 115n. on )
« E ).
Though last born, the young god must thus appear at the beginning of
the theogony by virtue of his association with Mnemosyne.
Singers are said to acquire their abilities from the Muses and
Apollo; cf. Hes. Th. 94–95 M! λ ' ("*)
#A*))« | Ν « $λ 3! λ /* λ !, Call.
Ap. 43 « S!κ 3)/# $ , « $*; further, Il.
23.78–79 $))# ξ ξ κ | $φ/ ! 7, D )/
** , Theoc. 4.40 ! )( ) « Ρ«
))*/, A.R. 2.258 F! ξ !@« D # 3)/ K7 , and Call.
Jov. 79–80 ξ :μ« "!)
«, λ :μ« Cξ $ | * α
)
!φ κ )< (‘allotment’).
Brown (1947, 96 n. 43) renders ‘she drew the son of Maia as her
lot’ and proposes that the poet argues against a tradition that Apollo
was the father of three Muses (cf. Eumel. 17), by making Hermes
Mnemosyne’s consort. The tradition that Apollo had fathered the
Muses was not widespread (cf. Gantz [1993, 54–55]), and M1!9 (!
#O)!! of 450 points rather to Hesiod’s Zeus-born Muses;
cf. also Eumel. 16 who mentions the genealogy of the Muses known
from Hesiod. Hermes was associated with the Muses, just as Apollo;
cf. Brown (1947, 129 n. 31). On a dinos by Sophilus (British Museum,
1971, 1101.1; 580–70 BC) that depicts gods and nymphs arriving at the
wedding of Peleus and Thetis’, Hermes and Apollo (holding the lyre)
share a chariot, while the Muses appear near them; cf. also Paus.
8.32.2: a sanctuary of Apollo, Hermes, and the Muses existed in Mega-
lopolis.
431 3 < ‘according to seniority,’ which may also imply ‘ac-
cording to rank’: Styx who is the !"( (‘eldest’) of Ocean’s
512 Commentary
daughters at Hes. Th. 777 is called also φ !( (‘most excel-

lent’) at Th. 361.
!" is Matthiae’s emendation of the MSS !"(; it occurs
first here, and is found next in Plato (Lg. 855d, 924c).
λ ³« !! Z « repeats the sense of the first hemistich
and clarifies that !" refers primarily to age. Hermes or-
ganizes his theogonic song according to chronological order, begin-
ning with the oldest deities and reaching to his own birth; cf. Hes. Th.
43–51, where the Muses are said to sing first ( ) of the gods <
$ /
«, beginning with those who descend from Gaia and Ouranos;
then they pass to Zeus, and they finish with men and the Giants; and
Th. 114–15 3! M! #O)1 @# 3/! | <
$ /
«, λ F# Ρ # C; cf. also 108–13 (quoted at
428n.)
M has λ ³« ! Ϊ«, which Ilgen (following Wolf) ac-
cepted to avoid the repetition; however, Hermes’ song is studded with
such repetitions (see above, 418b–454n.), and Ϊ« is a banalization
of Q !«, which is found with plural verbs in Homer.
432 &! picks up from 429, in a sentence that was

interrupted by the parenthetic π )/ M« ¹*; cf. 313 and
319 where C is repeated after the interruption of the construc-
tion.
μ« $!μ« ¹«: this clausula appears elsewhere only at Od.
11.568 (Minos); cf. :μ« $)ξ at 490 (= Apollo) and Maced.
Paean 3 (p. 138 CA; :μ« $)μ 3 «). Hermes’ theogony must
encapsulate the god’s advancement through the mythical time narrated
in the Hymn: from the son of a nymph at the beginning he has now be-
come an acknowledged son of Zeus and part of the Olympian cosmos;
this is reflected in the switch from M« ¹* of 429 (which refers to
what might be called the ‘proem’ of Hermes’ theogony) to :μ« $)μ«
¹*« here (i.e. in the section of the theogony that sings of all the gods in
order of birth). See also above, p. 48–49.
433 & % : not simply ‘singing,’ but ‘narrating in a celebratory

fashion’; cf. Risch (1985). This is commonly found in epic invocations;
cf. Il. 2.761, Od. 1.1, Hes. Th. 114, Op. 2, Aphr. 1, h.Hom. 19.1 and 29,
Il. Parv. 1, A.R. 4.2. For an overview of the attempts to explain the
Lines 431–434 513
meaning and etymology of (), see Dettori (1994) who takes

it to mean “narrate events which one has witnessed with his/her own
eyes” (p. 141).
3 : i.e. according to the proper order, as Hermes is
singing of the gods !" λ ³« ! Q !«. *!«/
! imply proper arrangement and enumeration, as is suggested
by the formula !7 ) and () ! at Il. 2.126, 476, 655
etc. Cf. the emphasis on order in the preceding verses; and see Ker-
schensteiner (1962, 4–10), Diller (1971, 83), Walsh (1984, 8–9), Finkel-
berg (1998, 124–25), and Hunter (2008, 160–61). At Od. 8.487–91
:(* # 3</ 7 ! " &# 4α | ν ! M!#
<, :μ« «, ν ! # #A*))α | )( *!
#A/ ρ $« | … | —« ν Cμ« Ω ν Ν))
$ 1!«. Demodocus’ singing *! is compared to (or said to
derive from) the knowledge of an eyewitness. Here such knowledge is,
of course, excluded, and its lack is made up for through the aid of Mne-
mosyne (cf. 429–30 and Od. 8. 488).
&% appears first here (and at 510, ) &),
then at A.R. 1.557 ) φ ! | P()U( #A/)
, Nonn.
D. 9.56 π ξ $( & (‘dedicated’) '
« * )/(« |
7 ! , ) M) (, | *«
)9 (!, Theophanes Continuatus 5.72 (= p. 322 Bekker) # p
λ κ
« 7 « * μ Ν! ¹μ ) φ -
! $!* (!. For its formation, cf. 388, where Hermes holds his
swaddling clothes # %)9 (, Theoc. 17.30 (K)), and Zum-
bach 25.
"@% : see 423n.
434: cf. 422–23 and [Hes.] Sc. 41 (« ( *« F
)).
0 « … $5 «: for the turn of phrase, cf. Sappho 130.2 3 « …
) 1 $/ R , E. fr. 430.2–3 « $(/!
C @ | 5E , !/@ , Theoc. 14.52
/c μ φ * ! $(/« 3 « | C ρ; in all
these $7/« 3 « signals irresistible erotic love, and not the effects
of music on the listener. For the sense of $7/« (‘irresistible’), see
R. Martin (1983, 11, 21–23).
; " occurs in this sedes in Homer, as part of a compound
514 Commentary
verb in tmesi in the sense of ‘taking away one’s life’ at Il. 4.531 ( #
F *); cf. < * at Il. 5.155, 5.848, 20.459.
F has been glossed above the line by a second hand in T
(= $φ97 ).
435–462 Apollo’s response to Hermes’ theogony

Apollo expresses his admiration for Hermes’ musical abilities as a bard
and obliquely asks for the lyre: at 437 he seems to propose the exchange
of his fifty cows (now forty-eight) for the instrument, which points for-
ward to 495ff. He enquires about Hermes’ new art and concludes by
promising Hermes and Maia honours.
This section functions as a meta-textual mise en abyme (for the
term, see Dällenbach [1989, esp. 96–97] and above, p. 9–10): by showing
Apollo’s reaction to Hermes’ embedded song, the poet suggests to his
audience how to receive the poem as a whole. In fact, one could say that
Apollo’s questions at 440–41 and 447–48, and his marvelling at 455
could be equally addressed to the poet by his own (i.e. the external)
audience.
435 A common speech introduction found 17x in the Iliad, 29x in the
Odyssey, and at h.Dem. 320.
436 ‘Slayer of cows, trickster, busy companion of the feast.’ Apollo ad-
dresses Hermes with a string of unconnected vocatives in a style remi-
niscent of the so-called Orphic Hymns, as Radermacher ad loc. points
out; cf. also the string of characterizations at 13–15 and 10–19n.
< φ occurs only here in epic, but Homer has "φ* at Il.
7.466. "φ*« occurs as an adjective at [A.] Pr. 530–31 (« …
"φ*«), as the title of a priest at Paus. 1.24.4 and 1.28.10; cf. the
quotation "φ*… at Chamael. fr. 34 (Wehrli) and
"φ*(« ()«) at Euph. 418.17 SH. No allusion to the Bouphonia rit-
ual is intended here.
*5 -: for the formation, cf. $!@(« or $)@(« of
296. Its meaning is ‘busy with (/,’ i.e. ‘trickster.’
' could be taken with what precedes (= ‘busy trickster’),
with what follows (= ‘busy companion of the feast’), or absolutely
(= ‘busy fellow’), all of which yield acceptable sense. 1 μ«
Lines 434–437 515
' seems marginally preferable: it signals both Hermes’ role as a

performer of music and his earlier invention of the first λ« !(. Be-
sides, it yields a tricolon crescens, elsewhere found in the Hymn at 171,
263 (see n. ad loc.), and 273.
Gemoll considered the passage corrupt beyond remedy, AS took
the participle absolutely, whereas AHS understood it substantively but
did not use any punctuation in this line, thus obscuring their interpre-
tation. Càssola renders “briccone sempre in faccende,” thus attaching
the participle to what precedes. West (2003a) emends to *
μ« ' ( ‘busy with the lyre’ (cf. Matthiae 291); but in early epic
! ‘to be busy with’ is construed with a prepositional phrase
(cf. Il. 15.447 χ ξ *( # b«, 24.444 θ ξ λ
* φ)
« ), and while the (adverbial) accusative is
found with ! (e.g. Il. 9. 348–49 _ ξ κ ) )) 7!
*!φ , | λ κ /« 3 …, 18.380 Rφ # Ρ # -
[= artifacts Hephaestus was constructing when Thetis came to
him], 23.245 1" # C ) ))μ Ω ! Ν, Hes.
Op. 432 ξ ! Ν , (!« [sc. Ν ]
ρ ), it refers to something that is being manually constructed; this
would be out of place here, since the lyre has already been crafted.
μ« J) is another way in which Apollo acknowledges
Hermes’ divine status, i.e. by accepting him as a participant with equal
status at divine banquets; for the divine «, cf. Hes. Th. 802. For
Hermes’ participation in divine banquets cf. LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no.
550 (kylix from Orvieto, Florence, Archeological Museum, 73127;
520–500 BC): Hermes reclining beside Heracles at a banquet; on the
other side, Apollo and Poseidon at a banquet.
Previously Apollo addressed Hermes as μ« ' , while the
lyre was called μ« ' ( by Hermes at 31 (see n. ad loc.)
437 ‘These things (sc. the lyre), to which you attend with great care, are
worthy of fifty cows.’ There is a brachylogy which should be analyzed
as follows: (o) ()« 7 " $< (!);
cf. LSJ s.v. i« B 4. For the (here implied) genitive with ()«
(normally found with the participle ()@«), cf. Il. 5.708, 13.297, LSJ,
s.v. ).
< - $ 8: the cows appear to be here a means
of determining the value of objects or a form of currency; cf. Il. 2.449,
516 Commentary
21.79 (' *"«), 6.235 (' *"# "), 23.703

( "«), 23.705 (!! "«). Appropriate for the god of
merchants, Hermes’ musical performance was also a display of mer-
chandise (the lyre), so that the prospective buyer, Apollo, may evaluate
it; we have thus here the prototype of a financial, market transaction; cf.
Leduc (2001, 34–35), McInerney (2010, 225–33).
The idea that Hermes gave Apollo the lyre as recompense for the
stolen cattle is reflected at Nic. Al. 560 (= p. 107 Keil): C7!! ξ
κ )1 , p (! ) #A*)) $λ "α !μ«
φ #A7 ² #A*)) 3"! C L« "*«, ?« 3 )5
² E
«, λ φ λ« 3 C) $) (‘ransom’) κ
κ /)@(« C) ! !(, ( )(
/), Ρ λ )1 )7(, ¹λ )1 « σ! Kξ ".
See also above, p. 106 with n. 62. We may think that fifty cows are too
high a price for a tortoise-shell lyre. But here the cows and the lyre lose
their mere economic value and become symbolic objects that seal
Hermes and Apollo’s friendship; cf. Heiden (2010, 410–11), who com-
pares this with the exchange of armour between Glaucus and Dio-
medes in Iliad 6.
«: for the sense ‘to attend to something with care,’ cf. LfgrE,
s.v. ), (), ") B 1 a. LSJ, s.v. ) B I 2 gloss ‘invented’
and tentatively suggest («, which West adopts as an emendation
by Page; he accordingly renders ‘here you have contrived something of
matching value to my fifty cows.’ I have not been able to locate any at-
testation of a perfect form (. Furthermore, Anacreont. 55.2–3
) W* ! S<L ), which is sometimes
cited for the construction of ) with the accusative is not relevant,
since (i) W* is most likely the object of ) rather than )
(for the textual problems here, see West’s edition and D. A. Campbell
[1998, 233] in app. crit.; West prints in l. 3 †!L $1<† ));
and (ii) the construction in h.Herm. is different as we have here a bra-
chylogy (see above). ()« is sound, and its use here is particularly
apt as it is inscribed within a network of )- words, building up an ex-
tended wordplay.
438 ‘I believe we are going to reach a settlement calmly after all.’

Contrast 254–55 7 "« | !!α λ / !*#
C *!. The music has enchanted Apollo who now hints at
Lines 437–439, 440–442 517
the exchange of the lyre for the stolen cattle. Hermes’ song has thus
achieved what Hes. Th. 103 says (/« ξ );
see p. 12–13.
π5%« occurs first here and subsequently at Pl. Tht. 179e.
π!1/« is found at Il. 21.598.
λ 0: ‘after all’; cf. 302n.
": ‘decide’, here ‘reach a settlement’; cf. Il. 20.211–12,
Hes. Th. 535 (with West’s n.), Op. 35 @ «, Th. 5.79.4
(‘resort to arbitration’), Pl. Phlb. 46b (‘decide’), LSJ, s.v. , III,
LfgrE, s.v. II 2 b ".
439 # Ν! +: this is the combination of two formulae,

# Ν, found at the beginning of the verse, followed by a hortatory
subjunctive and indicating the wish of someone who commands autho-
rity (at Il. 1.141*, 22.391*, Od. 12.213*), and $))# Ν * ,
generally found near the beginning of a speech most times followed
by λ $ « )< (e.g. Il. 10.384, 10.405, 11.819, 24.197,
24.380, 24.656, Od. 1.169, 4.486, 8.572, 11.170 etc.)
' : see 13n.
M « ¹: see 1n.
440–442 Apollo’s question regarding the origin of Hermes’ musical

abilities is interesting in many respects and is never directly answered
by Hermes. The first part of the question, namely whether Hermes’ ta-
lent has existed from the moment of his birth, is literally correct, as we
already know. But Apollo does not hear anything about this inborn
quality of Hermes; instead, at 495ff. one might get the impression that
Hermes has worked diligently on improving his skills in music, just as
he enjoins his addressee to do. The second possibility, that a god might
have taught him, is prima facie reasonable, but is rendered not only im-
possible but downright humorous when we bear in mind that the god(s)
involved would be Apollo himself and the Muses. The last part of Apol-
lo’s question implies that a mortal might have taught Hermes how to
sing to the lyre: but normally it is the gods who give or teach mortals an
art. This third alternative presupposes an inverted relation between god
and mortal such as we encounter in Comedy. At any rate, Apollo speaks
here like a mortal bard who met a colleague better than himself, a true
master.
518 Commentary
Since only the first possibility is valid, Hermes emerges here as

an C « in the truest sense of the word, whether we take it to
reflect “the improvisatory aspect of the poet’s activities” (Finkelberg
[1998, 54–57]) or the “singular and unrepeatable way in which [the
song’s] content is arranged” (Lanata [1963, 14]). But this too is not
without problems. The Hymn poet appears on one level to dissociate
the quality of being C « from the influence of the gods,
contrary to Od. 22.347 where Phemius, a mortal bard, claims
C « # , μ« φ !λ F« | « -
φ! (cf. Od. 8.480–81 8 # Ν !φ« [= $1«] | F« M!#
<). But if we are to think of Hermes as an C « bard in
h.Herm., the pronoun C*« of C « would end up referring
to a god: that god would be Hermes, who would thus be usurping
Apollo or the Muses’ role as teachers of music!
Apollo’s interest in how Hermes learned his art is picked up in
Hermes’ answer that contains a high concentration of words related to
learning; see 463–95n.
440 & ! « is found in early epic only at verse-initial position; cf. Il.
24.535 (the gods gave Peleus much wealth), Od. 18.6 (Irus bore the
name Arnaeus from his birth), Hes. Th. 271 (the Graeae were grey-
haired from the moment of their birth); in the Homeric examples a
stronger pause occurs after
«, marked in our editions with a
semi-colon. On ’s
«, see West on Hes. Th. 271, where the
same variant occurs.
Ϊ# Z : this phrase has in early epic a person or a concrete
thing as its subject; cf. Il. 1.158, 3.376, 4.476, 10.285, 11.472 = 15.559 =
16.632, Od. 17.53, 19.579 = 21.77, [Hes.] fr. 280.5. An abstract subject is
found with Ϊ# Q! at Pi. O. 6.72 (R)"«).
"3 0!: see 80n.
441 N « $" % N " - $ "6% : for _…_, see Schwyzer
II 565 with n. 3.
This is not a mere polar expression; cf. 440–42n. and Kemmer (1903,
79–80) who compares Il. 1.338–39, 18.107–108, h.Dem. 22–33, 55–56,
71–72, h.Herm. 9: in all these instances we ought not to understand these
expressions additively (i.e. everyone etc.); rather, their full force lies in
taking each component (gods, men) as a separate group.
Lines 440–443 519
442 - $! : $*« qualifies people in early epic, cf. 343n. Pi.
fr. 52k.36 has $* … *, while Arat. 469–70 speaks of $L«
(‘brilliant’) | $! «.
λ 0φ " $ explains ; for such particulari-
zing , see Denniston, GP 291(5). Od. 8.498 has c! !
$7, which could have been used here (cf. E. Med. 425, lyr.).
3φ ! ‘showed, explained’ implies “instructional disclosure”
(often by a god); cf. LfgrE, s.v. φ (&) A I 5 and Call. fr. 110.50. What
is meant here is the technical skill needed to perform on an instrument,
or as Porzig (1942, 64) remarks “gezeigt werden die Handgriffe.”
!« describes in early epic song or voice and sometimes refers
to a bard; cf. Od. 1.328*, 8.498* (! $7), 17.385 (!
$*), Hes. Th. 31–32 (Cκ | !). In all these examples, !«
means ‘divine, as if spoken by the god.’ It can be associated with oracu-
lar speech (like !!«; cf. Koller [1965b]), and its use with
$7/$*« implies a comparison of the human voice with a divine
one. Of course, Hermes’ $7 is !« properly speaking and will be
compared to oracular speech later in the Hymn. At h.Aphr. 208 !«
describes a dreadful whirlwind (!« $)) ‘caused by a god’).
7 ! ! C is uttered by the chorus at S. Ichn. 250 and
refers to Hermes’ song to the lyre which the Satyrs hear coming from
the cave.
443 " elaborates further on !« and is yet another indi-

cation of Apollo’s continuous state of wonderment; cf. 219n. and -
3 at 440.
* φ ‘newly uttered’ is formed by analogy to )φ«
(Od. 9.507 = 13.172, 19.163). For (- (instead of - as we would ex-
pect, cf. Debrunner [1917, 47], §95), cf. (7« Od. 4.336 = 17.127,
Zumbach 26, Wackernagel (1889, 10–11), and Solmsen (1901, 31–33).
Compounds such as S7φ« (e.g. Il. 5.401) and )7φ«
(e.g. Od. 2.355) may have been in the background, although -φ«
in these derives from ‘strike, kill’ (*gwhen- > ‘strike,’
φ*«).
2 does not refer only to the lyre’s sound but also to Hermes’
song. In the Theogony R!! is called the Muses’ and Graces’ voice
(10, 43, 65, 67; but at 701 it is the battle-din and at 832 a bull’s voice),
while in Homer it means ‘rumour’ sent by Zeus (Il. 2.93–94, Od.
520 Commentary
1.282–83 ~ 2.216–17). Collins (1999, 247–48) emphasizes the divine na-

ture of R!! which accords well with the preceding !.
444–446 further elaborate on 7φ. The fact that no god or mortal
has ever possessed the art of which Hermes is the master contradicts
part of Apollo’s question at 440–42 (whether any god or mortal taught
Hermes).
444 o Κ 6 φ : Görgemanns (1976) builds his

argument for a late date of h.Herm. partly on the fact that the Hymn
poet presents the musical art as something that can be learnt. However,
this is not an entirely new idea: Hesiod received his art through super-
natural visitation/initiation by the Muses, to be sure (cf. Th. 22–34),
but Odysseus praises Demodocus by saying that either the Muses or
Apollo must have taught him (Od. 8.488), and Phemius claims that the
god had inspired many ‘paths of songs’ in him (Od. 22.347–48). Cf. also
Il. 2.599–600, where the Muses’ punishment of Thamyris, to make him
forget his !1«, may imply ‘unlearning.’ The idea that the poet
knows the art of singing is already found in Archil. 1.2 ( λ M!
μ !«); knowing a craft or art implies learning it,
and this presupposes teaching.
444–445 Κ # $ - | Κ # $" % : also not simply a

polar expression; cf. 441n.
446 φ: see 67n.

μ« λ M « ¹: see 1n.
447–448 Notice the triple anaphora of «. Apollo’s question is again

tripartite, and his enquiry about the song that caused such emotions in
him is framed by two shorter questions regarding the art itself (/()
and the practice one needs ( "«). Thus there is a progression from
the general to the particular: what is this art (in general)? What is this
song that arouses cares? What sort of practice is needed to learn it? The
learning and practice a bard needs surfaces in Hermes’ reply at 475–87.
447 « 5 : /( refers sometimes to wiles and cunning (e.g. Od,
4.455, 4.529, 8.327, Hes. Th. 160, 496, 540, 547, 560, h.Herm. 76, Pi. N.
Lines 443–447 521
4.57–8) or to a craft or practical/technical competence (e.g. Il. 3.61, Od.

3.433, 6.234), as it does here. See Hieronymus (1970, I 22–23).
« $5 % 6 % : ‘what is this song that arouses
insurmountable emotions’ (not ‘against cares’): contrary to what is said
in Hes. Th. 55 (the Muses are )(!!1( λ Ν
( ), Hermes’ ! does not relieve Apollo from any emo-
tions but causes him new ones as 449 indicates; cf. Càssola’s n. ad loc.
means ‘song’ also at h.Hom. 19.15 8 !
$1 | 7 and perhaps at Od. 24.62 K*
M! ) (cf. Heubeck ad loc.); further at Pi. N. 3.28, A. Eu. 308,
Supp. 695 (lyr.), S. Tr. 643 (lyr.), E. Ph. 1028 (lyr.), Alc. 962 (lyr. =
‘poetry’), Ar. Nu. 312, Pl. Lg. 829d; LSJ s.v. II 1. Notice that at 450 the
poet uses the theonym (M1!9 (!).
The hiatus at the trochaic caesura is admissible; cf. West (1982, 39).
$5 % may be a genitive of an otherwise unknown $(/7«;
adjectives in -(« are sometimes formed from presents in -;
cf. Schwyzer I 513. It could also be a feminine of a three-termination
form of $7/« (cf. Ν" «, $ )«, $«, $ !«,
and Ν!"!« cited by AHS ad loc.)
6 designates elsewhere the curae amoris; cf. Hes. Op. 66
where Aphrodite is asked to pour on Pandora * $ )
λ "* « )@«. )@( is the form in the earliest texts
(cf. West on Hes. Op. 66), which is found at Od. 19.517, Sapph. 37.3,
[Theoc.] 21.5 and the Hippocratic corpus). At h.Apol. 532 )@«
could be read; likewise ) could be the form here.
Kloss (1994, 176–77) proposes ‘inspiration’ for ! and ‘song’
for )@, pointing to Hsch. 685 )(@· ( @. φ «.
%
) 7 and 686 )(*«· ( *«. . φ «. % ) , on
the analogy of )« : )(@, Ν/«: $/(@, Ν)« : $)(@;
but the analogy is apter with forms like ( -@, )-@, !(-@
(Risch 1974, 61, §25), and 449 spells out what is meant by )@.
At any rate, it is possible that the poet intended a pun on )«
throughout this section; cf. 447 )@, 451 )!, 453 )(!,
and (perhaps) 437 ()« (all this in a discussion on $7).
For $5 % 6 % , cf. Mimn. 6.1* $ ) )-
@ (the MSS have )@, Cobet emended to )
which is printed by West) and Simon. 520.2 Ν …)(*«.
522 Commentary
448 « < «;: notice the anaphora of the two verses: « /( ~ «
"«. "« ‘path’ does not occur in archaic poetry, but is found in
Hdt. 8.140. Pace Hieronymus (1970, I 65) (“die regelmäßige berufsar-
tige Tätigkeit des Kitharisten”), "« is used here in a metaphorical
sense, i.e. ‘beaten track’ approaching the meaning of "7, ‘practice,
exercise’; cf. " ‘skilled, practiced’ at Hdt. 4.74. One might also
think here of the common metaphor of the ‘path of song’ (cf. 451 ρ«
$
«), but that would be redundant and weak after « !.
"« is generally feminine, though it is masculine at E. Or.1258.
"7 (mere practice) is distinguished from (true) /( at Pl.
Phdr. 260e (C 3! /(, $))# Ν/« "7), 270b; cf. Pl. Grg.
462b–c.
$%« appears elsewhere in epic with a verb of speaking ($-
1 or )<) at verse-end; cf. 380, 459, and 564. Here it should
be taken with and functions like $ « ‘precisely’ at Od. 16.245
(!7 # Κ# r « $ ξ« Κ 1# ρ.
: »« with a numeral implies completeness; cf. Il. 19.247
and LfgrE, s.v. 1c" 2 and LSJ, s.v. »« 1 III C.
447–448 | … J": ‘it is possible to obtain all these three

things… ’; in other words, Hermes’ song causes the same effects
(Cφ !1(, 3 «, D« 8«) as the < 3 of the youths
at the symposia, and these effects are then within Apollo’s reach to
‘seize.’ It is a better alternative to the form of music that Apollo knows
thus far. This is the reason Apollo asks Hermes about the /(,
!, and "« (hence the ).
is not found with an infinitive in Homer or Hesiod, where
it means ‘to be present at hand/available’ (cf. Il. 8.294, 13.786,
Od. 14.80, 14.444, 17.457, 23.128). For the turn of phrase, cf. A. Eu. 867
# ')! ! ! < and S. Ph. 364–65 Ν)) ξ
! ! | ) # ')!.
449 :φ ' : this points to a sympotic context; cf. Od. 9.6–10,
Xenoph. 1.4. For Cφ !1( in the context of song, cf. 480–82,
Od. 9.6, h.Hom. 30.13–14, Sol. 26.2, Stesich. S. 148.8–9, Thgn. 765–66,
776, 1068, Anacr. eleg. 2.4 IEG, Xenoph. 1.4, 13, Simon. 519.1.ii.2, Pi.
O. 2.14, P. 10.37–40, Bacch. 10.53, 11.12, Panyas. 16.17, 19, Carm.
Conv. PMG 887.4; Nünlist (1998, 95–96 n. 27).
Lines 448–451 523
0% specifies the ‘irresistible emotions’ mentioned at 447. This

form of the accusative occurs first here; see Janko (1982, 135). Homer
uses 3 « at Il. 3.442, 14.294, 3 ) at Od. 18.212, but 3 « at Il. 14.315
and 3 at Il. 13.638 and 24.227; note too the frequent clausula <
3 Q. The dental stem is found already at Sappho 23.1.
F
: see 241n. For sleep in the context of the banquet,
cf. Thgn. 467–72.
450 M '9 #O : a modification of M! #O)-

«, a formula found at crucial moments in Homer and Hesiod:
Il. 2.491 (just before the catalogue of ships), Hes. Th. 25 (at Hesiod’s
Dichterweihe), 966, 1022 (cf. fr. 1.2) beginning the catalogue of women.
>« does not occur in Homer, who has S and S(
at the same sedes of our S(*« (cf. S7 earlier at 209), e.g. Il. 2.184,
10.58, 17.251, Od. 7.181. At [Hes.] fr. 26.10–11 we read of Porthaon’s
daughters []λ .[.] Nφ ))[)] []
!
( λ |
.[.]..[…]… M[]! . For the idea, cf. « 5A («;
further, Archil. 1.1, and Pi. fr. 95.3 ( μ« )« S = Pan).
Apollo presents himself as the follower of the Muses, whereas
elsewhere he appears to be of equal status or even their leader; cf.
Il. 1.603–604, Hes. Th. 94, fr. 941 PMG, Pl. Lg. 653d, Str. 10.3.10
(= p. 468 C.), Paus. 5.18.4, 8.32.2, 10.19.4, IG VII 36 (M!«), IG
XII,5 893.3 (M!(«), Otto (1955, 54), Nagy (1999, 291), Gantz
(1993, 55), and AHS on h.Hom. 25. Apollo’s statement is more appro-
priate to a human M! (cf. Hes. Th. 100, h.Hom.
32.19–20, Margites fr. 1.2, Choeril. 317.2 SH; cf. the parody at Ar. Av.
909, 913). With this the poet continues Apollo’s humanised presenta-
tion.
451 9
5 : song and dancing is one of the Muses’ com-
mon activities (cf. the name Terpsichore); cf. Hes. Th. 4, 7–8, 63, Pi. fr.
199.3, S. OC 691–92, E. Hel. 1345, Ar. Ra. 674, Pl. Phdr. 259c. Stesicho-
rus 250 calls the Muse $ /!).
$!μ« ρ « $ «: $)*« describes song also at Pi. fr. 333a.13
($)μ )«).
For ρ« $
« cf. Pi. O. 9.47 ( … ρ )1), Philet.
Epigr. 25.4b Spanoudakis (1 … ρ), and Call. Jov. 78 ()1 (« …
F«); see Spanoudakis (2002, 326–27) for more parallels. ρ« is
524 Commentary
Homeric (cf. Il. 11.24, where it means ‘stripes’), and it is sometimes

masculine as here or feminine (as in A. fr. 239, E. Alc. 835, Hp.
Decent. 4 [IX 230]20 etc.); but for ‘path of song’ F( is also used. The
idea underlying the concept of the ‘path of song’ is the order or ar-
rangement of events in the epic story; cf. Thalmann (1984, 124), Becker
(1937, 68–85, esp. 69), Lanata (1963, 11–12), and Finkelberg (1998, 52).
8« $
« (M and xm) may have been influenced by Od. 8.429,
where Bentley conjectured $
« ρ; cf. Garvie ad loc. and West on
Hes. Op. 662 ($!φ 8 $, where Hermann proposed
ρ).
452 κ "): )7 may mean song (Od. 21.430, 23.145, Pi.
O. 1.102, O. 6.97, 10.84), dance (Od. 4.19, 6.101), or song-and-dance;
cf. Fitton (1973, 259), LfgrE, s.v., and Janko on Il. 13.636. For an
exhaustive study of the term in ancient scholia and medieval lexica, see
Bielohlawek (1924–25) and (1926–27). Here it designates the combi-
nation of song and dance: the Muses are said to be fond of dances
(/ ), song (ρ« $
«), the accompanying aulos-music (" *«
C)), and the combination of all these, which is )7.
") does not elsewhere describe song or dance. Since song
and dance are considered the ornaments of a feast (Od. 1.152, 21.430),
which may be called ‘blossoming’ or ‘floorishing,’ hence ‘sumptuous’
(cf. ), )9 ( )9(), the adjective has been trans-
ferred to )7. For botanic images in the context of song, see the pas-
sages discussed in Nünlist (1998, 206–23).
¹« < « :- : ¹ *« is an attribute of the aulos-music
only here; elsewhere it qualifies song (Od. 1.421, 17.519, 18.304, Hes.
Th. 104, h.Hom. 10.5), the music of the cithara (Il. 18.570, [Hes.] Sc.
202), or dance (Il. 18.603, Od. 18.194, Hes. Th. 8, [Hes.] Sc. 280,
h.Herm. 481, h.Hom. 6.13).
< « designates in Homer the sound of fire (Il. 14.396), and " -
can indicate the buzzing of a swarm of flies (Il. 16.642). The associ-
ation of " *« with music appears first in the Hymns (h.Hom. 14.3
" *« C)); but note Dionysus’ appellation Bromios, e.g. at Pi. fr.
70B.6 (with van der Weiden ad loc.).
20 Littré prints K ! i )(!( ²μ ! ; a has

ρ, H has λ ρ in margine.
Lines 451–454 525
At S. Ant. 965 (φ)1)« # & M1!«) the Muses are

aulos-loving because they are presented as followers of Dionysus,
whose favorite instrument was the aulos. Alternatively, 1!« may
have been used metonymically (= ‘song’; cf. 447); see Griffith ad loc. At
Stesich. 278 the Muse accompanies her song with the lyre (Ν M!
)# Ν < $»« † 8«† | λ ) »
φ )1 ) ).
It appears from Apollo’s words that up to this point he has known
only the music produced by the aulos. This contradicts h.Apol. 131,
where the newborn Apollo claims the lyre as his prerogative. Our poet
may be working with a tradition in which Apollo was not originally the
god of the lyre. Moreover, Paus. 9.30.1 mentions a bronze statue of
Apollo and Hermes fighting over the lyre, which suggests that in some
accounts Apollo did not acquire the lyre as easily as is implied in
h.Apol. or that his possession of the instrument was at some point chal-
lenged by Hermes; cf. 515n. The poet may be attempting to reconcile
different claims on the instrument by presenting Hermes as the inven-
tor and Apollo as having acquired it through exchange. On the other
hand, it is also necessary for the story’s logic that Apollo not know the
lyre music yet.
Aloni (1981, 39) is right to point out that the lyre is referred to in the
context of the symposion (55–56), the feasts of young men (454), the
« and the banquet (481–82); and while it may be true that Hermes
and Apollo’s performances are closer to the citharodic (and sympotic)
performances of Phemius and Demodocus than to those of the rha-
psodes, it would go too far to say that they resemble performances of
shorter iambic songs, appropriate to banquets or : after all,
Hermes has just performed a theogony, whose length we cannot judge
on the basis of the summary form in which it is reported by the poet;
and although the poet makes no explicit statement regarding the con-
tent and style of Hermes’ citharodic performance, the presentation and
contents of this song and Apollo’s reaction to it suggest Hesiodic imi-
tation.
454 % … 0!: van Herwerden (1876, 75) and Gemoll wished to

emend to … 3 on the ground that so far Apollo had been re-
ferring to divine celebrations; hence, in their view, a mention of humans
would not be appropriate here. This emendation is not necessary. Like
526 Commentary
Hermes, Apollo too is associated with young men: cf. Hes. Th. 347
(with West’s n.) and Il. 1.472–74 where young men are said to sing a
paian in his honour. Besides, the reference to a banquet of men gives the
mise en abyme a greater point (see 56n. and 436–63n.). If the symposion
was indeed the performative context of h.Herm. (see 52–64n.), then 454
would render the reference to the youths’ < 3 at the feasts es-
pecially pointed.
& 8 0!: i.e. (the youth’s deeds at the banquets) ‘from left to
right.’ The sense ‘clever’ is attested in post-Homeric literature only for
<« (cf. LSJ, s.v. II 2) and <« (cf. Ar. Nu. 950–51 -
<! | )*!, lyr.) If ‘clever’ vel sim. is adopted here (cf. Càssola
ad loc. “prove di bravura”; LfgrE, s.v. <(«), and LSJ, s.v. <«
II), this would be the only attestation <« = ‘clever’ in archaic
literature. < has spatial sense in Homer (= ‘from left to right’ or
‘on the right side’): Il. 1.597, 7.184, 9.236 (< !7, i.e. on the
right-hand side, hence lucky), Od. 17.365. Cf. Eust. Od. II 150 (p. 1824)
glosses μ ξ < ν $λ < !« λ $)
!"*)) ν $λ <«.
During the symposion a branch of myrtle or a lyre would be circu-
lated to each banqueter, from left to right; whoever received the myrtle
or the lyre had to sing; cf. Dionys.Eleg. 1, 4, Eup. 354, 395, Pl. Smp.
177d, Anaxandr. 1, Hsch. 796, Reitzenstein (1893, 31 with n. 1, 40),
and Manuwald (2006, 161). Hermes is about to pass the lyre to Apollo
who is standing on his right and in doing this he will enact the <
3 of the symposion by means of the lyre (though of course Apollo
and Hermes are not at a symposion).
455 For the asyndeton, see 79n.

"@% cf. 219n.
&μ "@«: cf. 423n.
456 >! « &6 : cf. 245, 259nn.

3 : Apollo openly acknowledges here Hermes’ preco-
cious skills. ) 7 occurs only here in archaic poetry; but cf.
)*(« (= Hephaestus at h.Hom. 21.1) and the proper name K)-
7(« at Il. 23.634. These ) 7 consist not only of Hermes’
abilities as a bard, but also his technical skill and intelligence. Hermes’
) 7 have led to his ) 3 announced at 16.
Lines 454–457 527
ρ«: contrast 382 where ρ! is guaranteed by the metre. ρ«

is an Ionic innovation, attested also at Od. 1.337, Hippon. 177, Thgn.
491, 957, Hdt. 3.72.1, 4.157.2 (an oracle); cf. Chantraine, GH I 469
(§223) and Janko (1982, 148). ρ« here is supported by Il. 18.363*,
Od. 11.445*, 20.46* (7 ρ()). At 467 (σ) ρ« is unanimously
transmitted and supported by formulaic parallels. It appears that the
poet’s choice between ρ« and ρ! is dictated by formulaic prece-
dent: at 382 ρ! was suggested by clausulae such as Il. 15.93* ρ!
λ C7, [Hes.] Sc. 355* ρ! λ C*« (cf. Od. 17.573). We should
therefore not attempt to restore uniformity, as M seems to have done
here.
457–458 are transmitted only by M, but this should not cast any doubt
on their authenticity: the datives of 459 cannot follow directly after 456,
and judging by 272 μ # $ « $ 1« and 380 μ # $ «
$ 1, there should be a break before μ ().
457 e@, , λ " & < : ‘Sit down, my

dear fellow, and agree with your elders in respect to their speech (or ‘re-
quest’). For the idea in general, cf. Il. 4.412 !9
x! ) #
1) .
I adopt Ruhnken’s as an accusative of respect. Matthiae 293
considered this line a non sequitur and athetized both 457 and 458. The
problem here lies in the construction of : may be con-
strued with an accusative (cf. Il. 2.335 = ‘approve’), or with a dative, (Il.
18.312 = ‘agree with someone’), but the combination of the two con-
structions is unattested. Gemoll emended to ) (“billige, unterwirf
dich von Herzen älteren Leuten,” ‘agree wholeheartily with your
elders’). AS suggested (comparing Il. 24.119 where we meet
μ 79 (); but this is unattested and involves a synizesis found in
Homer only in proper names (see 116n.). Our poet has conflated the
two constructions. The antecedent for such conflation may have been
provided by a verse such as Il. 18.312 6E …9 7(!
(* in which a dative and an accusative are found in the vicinity
of .
As in 437, Apollo implicitly asks for the lyre, and Hermes is ex-
pected to acknowledge this veiled request.
528 Commentary
458–462 Apollo’s solemn promise confirms Hermes’ wish at 166–73: in-

stead of dwelling in his shady cave, Hermes is going to be introduced to
Olympus (cf. 169 C 9
«, 170–71 | Ν )
*) and will receive splendid gifts (cf. 168 $@ ( λ Ν)!,
171 )1!, $φ*, ))7).
458 ! : both particles retain their force. The primary function of
is “to bring home to the comprehension of the person addressed a
truth of which he is ignorant, or temporarily oblivious: to establish, in
fact, a close rapport between the mind of the speaker and the mind of
another person”; see Denniston, GP 537 and 549.
459 # :) - λ : Hermes’ promise to his mother that he will
provide for both of them (cf. 167 " ) ξ !) seems to come
true here. But even though Apollo mentions that Maia will acquire
glory as well, we do not hear anything about her after this point nor are
we told in what her glory will consist. Perhaps she will feel a joy similar
to that felt by Leto at h.Apol. 12–13.
μ # $%« $! '%: cf. 380 where the same phrase is used
deceitfully by Hermes.
460 λ 3 $ : Càssola’s ‘of cor-

nell-cherry’ for the MSS’ is the most reasonable solution
here. appears also at Gal. XVIIIb 576, 581, 582 and in some
MSS of Str. at 12.7.3 (= p. 570 C.). Paus. 3.13.5 mentions that there was
a grove of cornell-cherry sacred to Apollo on Mt. Ida, and Hermes had
the cult-epithet K « in Crete (I.Cret. II ix 1; cf. Farnell, Cults V
11). For the cornell-cherry (cornus mas), see Billerbeck (1972, 33–34),
Polunin (1980, 348) no. 845, and Baumann (2007, 26–28) with image
37. Note that at [Apollod.] 3.6.7 (III 70) Teiresias, blinded for having
seen Athena naked, is given the ability to understand birds’ voices and a
!
… , with which to walk.
$ ‘spear’ does not occur in Homer, though Ν is found at
Il. 11.364, Od. 13.225. Pace Zumbach 9, there is no diminutive sense here;
cf. Hdt. 1.34.3, Thuc. 4.32. This $ * is the cowherd’s staff, to be dis-
tinguished from the ! φ7 of 497 and the W" of 529–31.
An oath can be sworn by touching an object; see 383n. At Il.
1.234–39 Achilles swears by his scepter (λ * !
). A
Lines 458–461 529
king may swear an oath by lifting his spear; cf. Il. 10.321–31 ($))# Ν
μ !
$!/ R!!); further, A. Th. 529–32 on
Parthenopaeus’ oath by his spear.
460b–461 N ξ &!6 | μ & $" λ 2< π! #

Z%: ‘Truly, I will establish you as glorious among the immortals and
(as) a prosperous leader.’ π*# Q!!, proposed by Agar (1896, 389)
and adopted by Càssola (cf. Tyrell [1894–96, 47] π*# b!; Hum-
bert prints π*# D!), is necessary here. Homer has Q!! < Q,
but at Pi. P. 4.273 we find the infinitive Q!! < b&. 459 ($ 1!)
may have caused the corruption here.
π1 is elsewhere found with a dative (Od. 3.386, 8.4, Hes.
Th. 387) and never as transitive. Radermacher desperately attempted to
make the grammar work here by retaining the accusatives and emending
to π1!, understanding that Hermes will function as the leader
among the immortals. Hermes of course had the cult-title π*«
(Ar. Pl. 1159, Arr. Cyn. 35.4, Corn. ND p. 24, 1 Lang, IG II2 1496 col. iv
fr. a 84–85, fr. b 115–6 [331/30 BC] and II2 2873.6 [95/4 BC]), as a leader
of souls or a guide of wayfarers, but among the immortals this function
of his appears only in his leading Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite to Paris.
461 : this is used in early epic only in the feminine, either as part
of the formula :μ« κ « (Il. 18.184, Od. 11.580, Hes. Th.
328; cf. Od. 15.26 κ ) or otherwise with feminine
deities (Hes. Th. 442, Op. 257, h.Dem. 66, 179, 292, h.Hom. 12.4, 28.1)
and rarely of mortal women ([Hes.] fr. 372.9?); cf. A. fr. 355.16 (hex-
ameter; suppl.), A.R. 4.1333. The masculine is found at [Hes.] fr. 1.16
! « "!)7 (cf. Renehan [1986])
and Alcm. 2.2.
2< : R)"« is typically granted by gods to humans; cf. 24n.
Therefore Vamvouri-Ruffy (2004, 159–64) sees a contradiction in Apol-
lo’s words in these lines: he offers Hermes )« (458) and R)"«, both
qualities normally granted to mortals, but at the same time he is grant-
ing him «; Vamvouri-Ruffy connects this to Hermes’ ambiguous
status between mortal and god that leads to this ambivalent treatment
by Apollo. But at this point there should be no doubt regarding
Hermes’ divine status, and this is perhaps why he himself insists on ac-
quiring « at 477.
530 Commentary
462 $!3 -: i.e. the staff at 528–31, the bee-oracle of 530–66, the
tutelage over animals at 567–71, Hermes’ appointment as the psycho-
pomp at 572–73, and of course the remaining 48 cows which Hermes
had stolen.
λ &« « : $%: ‘and I won’t deceive you in the end’.
For « )« ‘in the end, in the long run,’ cf. Hes. Op. 218, 294, Hdt.
3.40, LSJ, s.v. )« II 2 a, Waanders (1983, 60) (“when it comes to per-
forming the action which fulfils [my] promise, eventually, in the end”).
463–495 Hermes’ reply: praise of Apollo and instructions on how to

use the lyre
This speech is divided into three sections: (i) at 464–74 Hermes ad-
dresses Apollo’s implicit request from 436–38, commends him for his
omniscience (467), and draws attention to his skill in divination. These
words, uttered by Hermes and addressed to a god who was unable to lo-
cate his stolen cattle without the aid of his infant brother, are certainly
ironic. By insisting on prophecy, Hermes implicitly requests the gift of
prophecy, which he may already have hinted at in his theogonic song in
which he sang of the apportionment of divine honours. At the same
time, Hermes’ words point to a theme that will return in 533–67.
(ii) The topic of the central section (475–88) is how one should
‘question’ the lyre. This section is framed by 474 and 489 !λ #
C * ! 7 Ρ ) »«; this framing of Hermes’ in-
structions sets them apart from the rest of the narrative and conse-
quently gives them greater prominence. Hermes’ praise is once again
ironic: an infant instructs an adult god on how to use an instrument
that according to another tradition he had claimed as soon as he was
born (h.Apol. 131).
The language in which the lyre is described operates in two levels:
the chelys can be understood as both a musical instrument and in an-
thropomorphic terms as a hetaira who is to be brought to a banquet.
Such language is in keeping with the erotic vocabulary used for Apollo’s
reaction to the song; cf. 418b–35n., 28n. (!) !λ "!), and
31n. (/ 1). Note, however, that the female tortoise was not con-
sidered a lustful animal; cf. Ael. NA 15.19 (/ ! /)@( &)
)!, $))# Ρ Ν (α ²) ξ π 7) Ν !). Fur-
thermore, the personification of the lyre is not unparalleled: cf. the
Lines 462–464, 464b–465 531
poet’s address to his/her instrument Sapph. 18, Pi. P. 1.1–6, N. 4.44, and
Bacch. fr. 20b.1–3. Kaimio (1974, 38) considers this as the poet’s “most
original contribution to the description of instrumental music,” but in
describing the way one is to handle the lyre, Hermes does not mention
any of the technicalities involved in playing the instrument (e.g. tuning
or fingering), but speaks of knowledge in extremely general terms; cf.
Heiden (2010, 409–10). We may recall that in describing how Hermes
fabricated the lyre, the poet did not include every technical detail one
might have wished to know. The same applies even more to the inven-
tion of the fire-sticks and the syrinx.
(iii) In 489–95 Hermes confirms the conditions of the exchange that
were set out earlier by Apollo (i.e. the lyre for the cows) and adds
to them tutelage over animals’ reproduction. Hermes thus ‘seals’ the
agreement, since he is the god of " 3 as Apollo himself
will come to acknowledge at 516.
463 see 162n.
464 +%) »« # E! φ«; ‘are you (really) asking me,

clever Apollo?’ For the question, cf. Od. 9.364–65 K1 )5, ) »« #
R )*; C @ | < , and Pi. P. 9.43–44 (quoted
below).
Homer has φ «, in the formula c(! -
φ « 1!* (Il. 1.466, 2.429, 7.318, 24.624, Od.
14.431, 19.423); cf. [Hes.] fr. 316.1 c(! ξ , φ «
# 1!. φ « may be construed here as a vocative mod-
ifying E (‘clever, cunning Far-shooter’; so AHS, Zumbach 40,
West, and Richardson) or adverbially (‘you ask me in a skillful
manner’, so AS and Càssola [“con molta eloquenza”]). Both construc-
tions yield acceptable sense, and in both cases Apollo’s hidden request
to obtain the lyre is implied. I therefore purposefully do not separate
the vocative from the rest of the clause with a comma.
464b–465 :3 &!6 | 5 « π« &< Κ

!%: see 166n. Music is presented once more as the domain of
Hermes, of which Apollo is about to receive a share. This may be an
answer to Apollo’s questions at 447–48 (cf. "«); cf. Nünlist (1998,
242).
532 Commentary
466 +«: This is the first of a series of words related to

learning and knowledge in Hermes’ speech to Apollo; cf. φ «
(464), σ ρ« (467), 7 (470, 474, 490), ( (473), -
!( (479), /9 ( λ !φ9( (483), (« (483), !
(484),
« (487); and Aloni (1981, 39).
For the asyndeton, see above, p. 48.
&"% ? « ρ = Il. 8.40 = 22.184, where Zeus addresses
Athena. Dornseiff (1938, 80) considered this phrase a parodistic ci-
tation of these Iliadic passages, by which Hermes imitates his father.
There is certainly humour in Hermes’ words since this phrase implies
the speaker’s superiority. Note too that the other two Homeric occur-
rences of this phrase are preceded by a statement to the effect ‘I am not
speaking earnestly’ (Κ 1 ) | *φ ).
467b 4 ξ φλ # σ ρ«: for ρ«, see 456n. This phrase is pure

flattery on Hermes’ part; he claims that Apollo knows everything, yet
he is about to teach him how to use the lyre. We may compare Chiron’s
words to Apollo at Pi. P. 9.43–49 (though no flattery is intended there)
1 « # ²* | < ) »«, τ Ν; 1 χ« )«
| ρ! λ !« )1«α | Ρ!! /Ω φ1))# $,
/%*! | )!!) λ « 5 | 1! W« #
$ ), | /c )), /%* | 3!!, σ ) »«.
468 # $" "«: cf. Il. 15.50 # $! &«,

which could have been used here. The Olympians are said to sit down
after Apollo at h.Apol. 9–12.
469 '« « : Homer has 1« « of mortals at

verse-end; cf. Il. 2.653, 3.167, 3.226, 5.628, 6.8, 11.221, 23.664, Od.
9.508; [Hes.] fr. 25.40.
470a & « ²«: ‘according to every divine law,’ hence ‘as is right
and proper’ (Richardson). For ²!(, see 130n. and 173n.; for = ‘in
accordance with’, see LSJ, s.v. III 7. This phrase qualifies the preceding
φ) ! ( Z1«.
470b–472 ‘and he has given you splendid gifts and honours. They also
say that you possess the gift of prophecy (lit: you know prophecy) [that
Lines 466–471 533
derives] from Zeus’s voice, Far-Shooter; (for) from Zeus stem all proph-
ecies.’ 470b may be inspired by Od. 16.230 3 $)
(the speaker is Odysseus), while lines 471–72 are the culmination of the
first part of Hermes’ speech; with these the young god is hinting at the
gift of prophecy.
The punctuation of these lines has been the subject of debate. I fol-
low Gemoll and Càssola in adopting Matthiae’s punctuation, i.e. pla-
cing a semi-colon after « at 471 and after E at 472; cf. Mat-
thiae 295. This gives satisfactory sense and dispenses with the problem
of occurring in the fourth position in its clause (see below).
AS placed a middle stop after and took the rest up to (and
including) 472 as one sentence with !φ as an apposition.
AHS followed the same punctuation, but printed (M) instead of
() at 471, and considered this the earliest example of separated λ
(for which see Denniston GP 199–203). Their reason for not taking
:*«… as a gnomic statement is that it would be inappropri-
ately pompous if uttered by Hermes. This, however, is not compelling
given the overall tone of Hermes’ speech: the infant Hermes presents
himself as the benefactor of his elder brother. This punctuation is fur-
thermore troublesome since it makes « the object of 7: but
are normally obtained, not learned. West (2003a) punctuates
after and takes « as a genitive depending on «; but
as far as can be judged on the basis of the meager parallels, this con-
struction occurs with the singular of 7; cf. h.Dem. 311–12 #
κ | λ !. Plurals appear coordinated with 7; cf.
Hes. Th. 396
« λ "(!, 426–27 3
« | λ
.
471 «: see 172n. For the coordination of gifts and honours, cf.
h.Dem. 327–28 λ )) )) | « #… with
Richardson ad loc.
φ: general statements introduced in this way are often found in
epic when mortals refer to the divine world or to the distant past which
they know by way of tradition (this may be viewed as a precursor to the
so-called “Hellenistic footnote”); e.g. Il. 2.783, 5.638, Hes. Th. 306, Op.
803, and Renehan (1971, 87–89, 104–195), who discusses parenthetic
φ!. Hermes’ use of φ! is consistent with his role as a bard who
would reasonably have access to such remote knowledge. It is also ab-
534 Commentary
surdly humorous since the new-born Hermes has not been conversing
with anyone regarding Apollo.
471–472 cf. 531–32 λ 3 | $ Ρ! φ(λ

7 :μ« Sφ
«.
471 >φ«: Sφ7 is the divine, oracular voice; cf. « in the
following line; 566 (Hermes’ voice as communicated through the bee-
oracle), Thgn. 807–808 o ) P / 7!!# ¹ |
Sφκ !(79 ( « < $1, and A.R. 3.939 Sφκ
7). For Zeus’s Sφ7, cf. Il. 8.250 φ) Z(, [Hes.] fr.
150.12 etc. Meier-Brügger (1989) proposes a derivation from *sonkwh-
‘sing, praise.’
472 « occurs first here instead of the Homeric !1(
(Il. 1.72, 2.832, 11.330 [the last two: 9- !1«], Od. 9.509),
which could have been used here. In archaic poetry is found
four times in the Hymn (also at 533, 547, 556) and at Tyrt. 4.2.
The MSS offer # (or ’) after «, which is impossible if Mat-
thiae’s punctuation is adopted (see above).
μ« "φ : This follows in epexegetic asyndeton
and explains :μ« Sφ
«. The phrase has a proverbial ring, and this
colon is nearly a paroemiac.
!φ are ‘divine ordinances’; cf. Benveniste (1969, II 140–42)
who observes that !φ« “is applied to an event which is fated, not
simply an event which will come about, which is prepared or foreseen
by the gods, but the foreseeing of a fate that is marked out by the gods”;
cf. Il. 5.64 Κ !φ - 9(.
473 - :μ« &!6 , ), $φ μ : ‘I have now

learned [hence: I know] that you, child, are rich in these things (i.e.
, «, «).’ A highly problematic verse for which numer-
ous emendations have been suggested. The line is transmitted as
(or: ) Cμ« 3 # $φμ ( , which is unmetri-
cal. As AS and AHS observe, the beginning and the end of the line are
sound. ! was introduced by Hermann for the MSS’ , and it improves
the sense. For the unmetrical collocation # $φμ Allen (1897a,
265–66) proposed the simple emendation .
Lines 471–474 535
With this statement Hermes emphasizes once more Apollo’s skills

and possessions, and indirectly asks for a share in these, and especially
in divination, to which Hermes devotes 471–72: since Apollo has
enough and to spare, he could give some of these possessions to
Hermes. In addition, Hermes’ fits well with the general tone of this
speech; cf. 490 , and especially 466 ) -« ρ. Fin-
ally, addressing an adult or even older sibling as is not unparalleled;
cf. Hdt. 3.53.3, S. OC 1420, 1431; Dickey (1996, 69).
B. Martin (1605, 39) proposed « !# S<1 ( (“scio
quam sis perspicax in futuris cognoscendis”), but entertained also the
idea of keeping $φ*. Groddeck (1786, 92) wished to athetise this
verse and thought that Apollo’s epithet :φ« may lurk in #
$φ*. Hermann’s φ will not do since it is elsewhere ex-
clusively an epithet of Zeus (to the instances cited at 471n. add “Simon.”
AP 6.52.2 [= FGrE 933], [Orph.] A. 660, 1299). Radermacher justified
his conjecture @ ! # (= ) $φμ ( with the pre-
sumed elision of at 152; but see n. ad loc. against the assumption of
such an elision there. AHS proposed φ considering ’ as
a corruption of (= aeolic ), which they translated as ‘re-
cently.’ However, the meaning of φ« is ‘suddenly,’ as its only at-
testation at Hsch. 989 (φ«α <(«) shows.21 Pavese (1974,
93) accepted φ as an indication of the Hymn’s mainland
provenance; cf. Janko (1982, 148). West (1966b, 150) proposed λ
φ or λ φ(« (cf. Janko 267 n. 87), but in his edition he
prints Evelyn-White’s )# $φ*. Pötscher (2004–2005), finally, sug-
gested Cμ« Ω « # $φμ ( , maintaining that
Hermes as a child could not call Apollo a «. But this ignores both
the irony of 466 and the reversal of the age relation between the two
gods, as the infant Hermes is about to instruct the adult Apollo on his
own art.
474 λ # :! & Ρ ) »« = 489 ‘it is in

your hand to learn whatever you desire.’ :! « (= Aeolic for
C «; for the formation cf. also )- «) occurs else-
where in archaic poetry at Od. 16.148 and Semon. 1.19, and subse-
21 Similarly, 3 # φ« (sic) ( was suggested by Ilgen, who lists also other
emendations of this troublesome passage.
536 Commentary
quently at A.R. 2.326, 4.231, Opp. Hal. 5.588 etc., but is construed with
an infinitive only here. On )»«, see 62n.
There is a touch of irony in this statement: Apollo can easily learn
whatever he desires, yet Hermes provides him with thirteen verses of ex-
planation on how to play the lyre.
475 "μ« &"': 1 normally has a personal subject; cf. Il.
18.175, A.R. 1.1238, 2.1154, 3.354. Schulze, QE 340, unjustifiedly con-
Υ
sidered the quantity of as lengthened metri gratia and an indi-
Υ
cation of the poem’s lateness; cf. already Il. 18.175 (T « !)
and Shipp (1972, 342 n. 3). For the expression, cf. Archil. 196a.3 #
τ ! μ« 1.
Notice the alliterative wordplay in μ« 1 &.
476 : see 452n.

$!C« $! : ‘attend to festivities.’ $)U generally means
‘splendour,’ and given the overall sympotic context here it means ‘fes-
tivities.’ Cf. [Hes.] Sc. 272 $)U« / « , 284–85 »! ξ
*) ) / | $)U # ρ/, and Panyas. 16.14 ξ
)(« μ « $)U(« , | ξ / («…, LSJ, s.v.
2. LfgrE, s.v. I e, gloss this particular instance of $)U as “glanzvolle
Werke” (‘splendid deeds’); however, this passage would fit under their
category I d “festlicher Glanz,” where the aforementioned passages
from [Hes.] Sc. are quoted.
For $! , see 361n.
Notice the alliterative wordplay in $)U« $).
477 Hermes proposes again the terms of the agreement: Apollo will re-
ceive the lyre from him and in exchange he will give « to Hermes.
! « &8 &" : For « (present athematic participle),
see Chantraine, GH I 296 (§137).
φ(): this is the first indication of friendship between Hermes and
Apollo. Cf. 507, 525–6nn.
' … « 2@: cf. 35 !1 @! S7!«,
Hermes’ formulation in the previous agreement with the tortoise.
Generally, the gods are said to lend (S&) « to mortals;
cf. Il. 8.141, 12.255, 14.358, 15.327, 16.730, 17.566, 21.570, Od. 3.57,
15.320, Hes. Th. 433 ( « S <; at 438 a victorious athlete «
Lines 474–479 537
S& to his parents through the aid of Hecate), Solon 19.5, Ar. Eq.
200 (a mock-oracle); contrast A.R. 1.345, 1.511. The « Hermes is
after consists both in material gifts as well as the art of prophecy.
478 *:: cf. 476 ), also at the beginning of the verse. A. fr.
168.19 has C*)« K[«], while EΚ)« occurs as a proper
name at h.Dem. 154 (see Richardson ad loc.). A poem entitled
EC) was attributed to Musaeus (cf. Paus. 10.5.6).
!'φ% : this epithet describes birds (a Ϊ ( Il. 19.350, a night-
ingale Theoc. 12.6–7, D.P. 529; cf. Lyr. Adesp. 7.1 [= p. 185 CA]) or the
Hesperides (Hes. Th. 275, 518). It fits well with ' ( which can be
understood in both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic terms (see
below). Cf. ) used of the φ* < at Il. 9.186, Od. 8.67, 8.105,
22.332, 23.133, h.Hom. 21.3 etc. The C)! are called )1φ
at Thgn. 241.
J : cf. 31 μ« ' (. From this point on the chelys is pre-
sented simultaneously as both an instrument made of the tortoise shell
and as a woman, in fact a hetaira whom one holds in his arms (
/ !λ 3/) and brings to a banquet. Such a double entendre accords
well with the poet’s playful wit.
The first attestation of ' ( ‘courtesan’ is commonly held to be
Hdt. 2.134.1, but this would not be true if a date of h.Herm. in the 6th c.
BC is accepted. See Reinsberg (1989) and Kurke (1997) on hetairai.
479 Notice the accumulation of positive characterizations in this line;

cf. 13–15, 125–26nn.
σ 3 ‘in good, orderly fashion’; cf. Il. 10.472, 11.48*,
12.85*, 24.622, A.R. 1.333*, all of which describe technical tasks. Cf.
433n.
& « ‘if you know how to speak (i.e. sing) in an orderly
fashion’; the condition expressed by the participle is answered by 480
(Κ ()« ξ 3 φ ; cf. LSJ, s.v. 3 I4b). The MSS
have !«, which is clearly wrong here; it is a correction for
what was perceived to be a metrical error, possibly influenced by 390 σ
λ !«. Allen (1897a, 266) and AS/AHS adopted Gemoll’s
!«, understanding that Apollo already knew to sing. Barnes
emended to !(, to be taken as an attribute of the ' (; but
the point is not that the ‘companion’ knows how to speak (this is
538 Commentary
beyond doubt), but whether the lyre player is skilled enough to elicit a
pleasant ‘answer’ from her (cf. 483 («) or
« (487).
480–481 For the idea, compare with Carm.Conv. PMG 900 F )1
)κ ( )φ( | )λ « φ :1!
« / *.
480 Κ « ξ 0 φ : cf. Hes. Op. 671–72 Κ ()« *

… | ') . There is no need to emend into , as van Her-
werden (1888, 84) proposed, since the object of φ can be easily
inferred. For this solitarium, see Denniston GP 380. The implication
is that whoever does not know how to sing in an orderly fashion should
not bring this ' ( to a banquet. This is partly implied in 482—88.
481 5 μ ¹ sometimes refers to divine dances; cf. Od. 18.194

(Graces) Hes. Th. 7–8 (Muses); contrast Il. 18.603, [Hes.] Sc. 280.
φ - : see 375n. on φ) .
- « appears first here in epic, but [Hes.] Sc. 281 has @&. It
recurs at Thgn. 829, 940, and very often in Pindar, where it designates
the band of revelers that celebrate an athletic victor or the song per-
formed during such celebrations. A celebratory procession accompa-
nied by the aulos (cf. [Hes.] Sc. 281, Pl. Theaet. 173d, E. Ph. 791), «
was sometimes associated with Dionysiac revelry (cf. E. Ba. 1167,
A. Ach. 264–65, Pl. R. 637a–b) but could also represent the result of the
sympotic festivities (cf. Eub. 93.8) or even hired entertainment (cf. X.
Smp. 2.1 ³« # $φ9 ( (! ¹ & … 3 / C« λ
*!« « Ν «, 3/ C)( $κ λ
S /(! 1 λ
³ λ ) )« & λ S /1); the festive at-
mosphere of a « is described at Sappho 44.24–34. Cf. Peruzzi
(1993, 359–62) and Halliwell (2008, 105–106), who calls « “a mo-
bile or transitional symposium.” Durante (1974) connects « with
Sanskrit śam
· s- ‘praise.’
482 :φ ' : for the combination of « and Cφ !1(, cf.
Bacch. 11.12. Cφ !1( is in apposition to , / *, and
; it is the pleasant atmosphere of good cheer produced by the
combination of feast and song, as Od. 9.6–10 indicates.
Lines 479–483 539
Ρ« « f : : for the asyndeton, which is characteristic of the

poet’s style, see above, p. 48. The next two sentences that describe the
process of questioning the lyre are well-balanced; cf. Ρ« « r C7
(482) ~ χ« C7 (486*), < 9 ( (483) ~ 9
( (487*).
Radermacher 157 remarks that from this point on it is the poet, not
Hermes, who is the actual speaker; we might say that the poet identifies
with his hero or that their voices overlap, instead. For such merging of
voices in the longer Homeric Hymns, see above, p. 13–14.
483 5 9 λ φ9 : see 447n. for /9(.

φ occurs only once in Homer (Il. 15.412) and at [Hes.] fr. 306;
cf. also Hes. Op. 649 (!!φ!«) with West’s n. Its sense is ‘skill,’
and especially poetic skill or even poetry itself; cf. Thgn. 19, Sol. 13.52
(= ‘poetic art’), Sappho 56.2, and frequently in Pindar. But !φ
can designate skill in other fields as well; cf. for instance Il. 15.412
(a carpenter), Archil. 211.1 ( " 7(« !φ*«), Alcm. 2.iv.6, Pi. P.
3.54 (Asclepius, the physician), P. 5.115 (a 4 ()(«), S. Aj. 783
K)/« !φ*« (sc. «).
/9
( and !φ9 ( reflect different facets of the poet’s activity: !φ9
(
refers to the cognitive aspect of music making, whereas /9 ( desig-
nates the technical skill; cf. Barmeyer (1968, 155–62, esp. 157). For the
combination of /( and !φ, cf. 511, Pl. Prt. 321d (κ 3/
!φ), Raubitschek 295 = IG I3 766 = CEG I 234:
[!)μ] ! !φ! ![φ]&![ ][ /]
[hμ« ] h/ / )[]
Λ h[/ "]
a dedicatory epigram, probably by an artisan who thanked Athena for
his craft and skill with an example of this craft and skill (Furley 2011b,
166). We may say that this is exactly what the poet is doing here: he
dedicates to Hermes, the (presumed) patron of his art, a hymn that
showcases his /( and !φ.
&8 9: see 252n. Its meaning here is ‘question,’ pace LSJ, s.v. II
who gloss ‘try its tones, tune it,’ a sense that is inappropriate in this
context (so too AHS’s ‘invites’). < is used of consulting an
oracle; cf. 547n. and LfgrE, s.v. B 4. The song is conceived of as a pro-
cess of question-and-answer between the bard and the lyre, and the
poet sets up a comparison between questioning the lyre and consulting
an oracle: both may give good or pleasant answers (484–85 ~ 543–45,
560–61), but they are also capable of unpleasant or deceitful ones
540 Commentary
(486–88 ~ 546–48, 562–23). This is similar to the Muses’ statement at

Hes. Th. 27–8, but there is an important difference: the Muses’ veracity
depends on their will (σ# )), while the lyre’s responses are the
result of the bard’s preparation and skill. Hesiod’s Muses speak from a
divine perspective, Hermes from the perspective of the bard. See also
above, p. 17–22.
484 )% 5 : ‘charming (to) one’s mind’; for the dative with
/ cf. Thgn. 477 ρ« / !« $ λ *!.
: the lyre is a ‘teacher,’ just as the Bee-maidens are said to
be (« ! ) at 556. A poet is sometimes presented as a
teacher; cf. e.g. Pi. O. 8.59, Ar. Ach. 628–29, Av. 912; the tragedians were
the ! ) of the chorus.
485 ‘Easily played (or: playful) with gentle intimacy.’

"9 … 9 : !7 does not occur in Homer or
Hesiod, but the latter has !7(« at Th. 230 (= ‘neighbour’). In accord-
ance with the double entendres in this section, !7 can mean here
both ‘practice’ (cf. Pl. Lg. 656d) and ‘sexual intimacy’ (e.g. LSJ, s.v. I 1 b).
« is sometimes used of music; cf. Pl. R. 398e ()
λ ! λ 4 ), 411a, Arist. Pol. 1290a20–29, where
it designates soft, hence effeminate modes, a concept related to the idea
of ethos in ancient music; cf. Abert (1899), West (1992, 246–53).
Notice the rhyming pattern at !(9 (! … ) 9
!.
$" is also ambiguous (cf. Agar 1929, 22). As a middle,
$ ( would be appropriate to a hetaira (‘playful, sporting’); as a
passive it would designate the instrument (cf. 52n. Ν ; h.Hom.
19.15 ! $1 , Pi. I. 4.57, Anacreont. 43.10–11, A.R. 3.949,
and perhaps at Alc. 70.3; Diggle 1996, 12).
486 &! φ'! " : ‘avoiding bad playing’ or ‘bad

craftsmanship.’ The lyre may yield no (good) response to bad practice,
or she may avoid toilsome, banausic work.
&! occurs first here (but &! is found at Il. 18.469,
Hes. Op. 299 etc.), and subsequently at Pi. O. 8.42, Hdt. 1.68.2 etc. It
may designate the practice of arts and crafts (cf. LSJ, s.v. II 4), but also
sexual intercourse (cf. Hdt. 2.135.1 and Dem. 18.129 with Wankel ad
loc.); so are labor, opus, and opera in Latin; cf. Adams (1990, 156–57),
Lines 483–488 541
and further «, K in Henderson (1991, 21, 160), and Le-
naiou (1935, 172–73). This sense of !( may resonate as well in the
implicit comparison of the lyre to a hetaira.
*" « appears only here, but later epic has (7« (e.g.
A.R. 4.1165, Opp. Hal. 2.436, Nonn. D. 41.411), and (# could
have been used here as Zumbach 3 points out. Compounds of «
naturally belong to the third declension, but cf. *« at D.H.
A.R. 20.17.1, and Vita Aesopi (G) 37 instead of 7«.
’s φ! is due to φ( of 484.
χ« : : see 482n.
487 « &6 : i.e. without possessing /( and !φ yet (cf. 483).
«
(< (-ζ-) may be used absolutely as here and A.R. 3.130
*
(in a passage that alludes to h.Herm.; see p. 115), but often it is further
specified: cf. Od. 8.179
« $), Bacch. 5.174–75
3 / !«
| K1 « )<" *, Call. fr. 178.33 )(«.
&@φ-«: ‘violently, furiously.’ &φ)o«/&φ)« are
used of anger in Homer; cf. Il. 9.516*, 9.525*, Od. 6.330*, and A.R.
4.1672*.
& : cf. 483n.
488 ‘she will then in vain, without (the desired) result, produce shrill,
false (lit. ‘broken’) sounds.’ The potential optative almost equals a fu-
ture tense here.
3B Κ%« because the lyre’s sounds will not ‘teach things pleasing
to one’s mind.’ Κ« ‘just so, in vain’ (cf. LSJ s.v. I 2) reinforces 5
(‘without result’).
is adverbial, coordinated with 5 Κ«. We find
7 « at Il. 8.26 and 23.369, where it means ‘off the ground, in
mid-air’. Radermacher suggested “aufgeblasen” (‘pompous’) here, but
it is certain that 7 refers to shrill, high-pitched sounds, as AHS
propose, more appropriate to the aulos than the lyre (see below). Kai-
mio (1977, 107) proposes that the meaning of 7 is ‘wavering, in-
constant,’ and that in combination with ))& it means ‘babble
idly’; but this fails to bring out the sense of ))& as a technical
term in music (see below). Perhaps ‘up in the air,’ i.e. uncertain, unde-
cided is closer to the mark. Richardson finally, calls attention to
! , ) in Aristophanes and Plato “used in a
542 Commentary
derogatory sense of pretentious scientific talk (together with $-

)!/).”
"@ is Ruhnken’s emendation of the MSS )&, which
may be due to a corruption in the majuscule. The stem )- sometimes
appears ))- and Frisk, s.v. 1)« considers this an expressive gemi-
nation. The suffix -)&- appears in verbs deriving from nouns contain-
ing the suffix -)- that indicate defective pronunciation vel sim., e.g.
)&, 5))&, ))&, ))&; cf. Tichy (1983, 162).
Homer has )!! (‘crush’) at Il. 23.396. For the meaning of
))& here, cf. D.H. Comp. 11.8 λ C)(7 … Ρ !φμ (lit.
‘spongy’, hence perhaps ‘weak’) 1!« ν κ !« μ !* -
)μ ν κ )( ) (Κ)(! and Porph. in Harm. p. 20
Düring Ρ C)(κ« $!1φ 1!9 ( κ !« μ !*
)!μ ν )« C)7!9 (. Hermes is explaining to Apollo the
handling of the lyre in terms that he will understand, since as he ad-
mitted at 452 he only knows aulos music so far.
489 see 474 n.
490 &!Ω 6% ' : Solomon (1994, 38) points out that
when a human or semi-divine figure presents a god with a gift in myth,
“the gift belongs innately and originally to the divine character.”
On the future tense in acts of giving, see Christensen (2010,
565–67), who proposes that the future is more marked (than the present
tense) as more formal.
491–492 ‘And I on the other hand, Far-Shooter, will graze down the
pastures of the mountain and the horse-feeding plain with my field-
dwelling cows.’
491 ¹ < : ¹*" most often describes Argos,

e.g. Il. 2.287, 3.258, 19.329, Od. 4.99, 15.274, [Hes.] fr. 25.36, 257.3,
E. Supp. 365, Tr. 1087. But cf. Sapph. 2.9 ) *"«.
491–492 π)« … | … ' : i.e. Hermes. For the meaning and

construction of 1 here, cf. OLD, s.v. depasco 2. One could con-
ceivably take π«…1! as a genuine plural; however, it seems
that the agreement between the two gods will be that Apollo receives
Lines 488–495 543
the lyre and keeps it for himself, while Hermes keeps the cattle he had
stolen in his permanent possession. Apollo of course had the cult-title
*« (e.g. Hp. Morb.Sacr. 1.89 [VI 362], Call. Ap. 47 with Williams’
n., A.R. 4.1218. [Theoc.] 25.21, SEG 9: 132, SEG 49: 845); but Hermes
had this cult-title as well (e.g. Ar. Th. 977, IG II2 3977, P.Oxy. VII
1015.7 $ * ξ μ * )! "
«), as also did Pan
(h.Hom. 19.5, Paus. 8.38.11, Artem. 2.37 [p. 139 Hercher], [Orph.] H.
11.1). Hermes’ ironic comment in 494–95 is more meaningful if Apollo
is entirely giving up his cattle; cf. also 497–98.
σ() juxtaposes the subject of its clause (π«, i.e. Hermes) to an-
other person mentioned as the object of the preceding clause (, i.e.
Apollo). In this use it is generally accompanied by a form of C*«,
which in fact happens at 511; cf. LfgrE, s.v. σ II 1a.
Notice the figura etymologica in 1« … 1!, probably
hinting at the cult-title *«.
493 <« ' !): at 192 we were told that Hermes stole
only female animals and that the bull had been left behind. The cattle of
the gods will henceforth mingle with regular cattle; however, there is no
need to posit a change of the cattle’s status from immortal to mortal as
Kahn suggests (see 71n.)
493–494 !) | ! : once more a figura etymologica.

Early epic has (Od. 24.77, Dem. 426); ! appears first
here and subsequently at Pi. fr. 52m.7, A.R. 3.1381, Nic. Th. 932, Al.
179, 385 etc.
494–495 As in the first section of his speech, Hermes closes his address
to Apollo with a reminder of his greed (cf. 355 φ))7«). This is of
course ironic, given that Hermes has been no less greedy. Our poet
may have been influenced by h.Dem. 82 C ! / κ | 5 Κ«
Ν)( 3/ /*).
: ‘greedy,’ rather than ‘clever’ as Führer glosses (LfgrE,
s.v., col. 1387.53), considering this a compliment to Apollo before their
reconciliation. Hermes’ speeches are all ).
@ -« occurs only here and at [Hes.] fr. 204.126 ( &-
«) in archaic epic. See 307n. (on &!).
544 Commentary
496–502 The exchange of the lyre for the stolen cattle

In this short section the exchange of the lyre and the cattle (symboli-
cally given to Hermes through the goad) takes place. As soon as Apollo
receives the lyre, he immediately performs on it. Scheid-Tissinier (2000,
205–206) argues that this exchange reflects the gods’ need to define a
specific field of action which will enable them to be recognized and ho-
noured by the mortals.
There is some parallelism in the way these lines are structured: cf.
c < (496) ~ )< (497), ² # < d"« #A*)) (496)
~ 3 ξ M« ¹*« (498).
497 05 : ‘he gave Hermes the far-sounding whip to have (as his).’ The
MSS reading 3/ cannot stand; it would yield a weak sense ‘holding/
possessing the whip, he gave it to Hermes’. Matthiae 301 proposed
3/ comparing Il. 7.350–51 (# Ν#, #A ( E)( λ
7# Ϊ# C9
| @ #A U9 (! Ν); cf. also Il. 11.192–93
« )< . Martin (1605, 37) emended to ' @ which
was adopted by Càssola and West. A.R. 2.55–56 )< | Cμ«
' @ evoked by Càssola is not a good parallel because there Cμ«
' @ is contrasted to Ν ).
! φ : !< is used elsewhere in early Epic in driving
horses or donkeys (e.g. Il. 5.748, 11.532, Od. 6.81, h.Dem. 378), and not
cattle; but Hermes will receive the tutelage over various animals, includ-
ing horses and donkeys, in addition to the " ) (567–71).
φ refers to sound (‘clear/far-sounding’); cf. (pace Kaimio
[1977, 46]) Il. 11.532 ! ) 9
, (alluded to at S. Aj. 242 [lyr.]
) )» ! )9
) and Pi. P. 4.283 φ»« S*«, a ‘clear (lit. radi-
ant) voice.’
498 < « # & : ‘he entrusted him the care of cattle.’ "-
)( does not appear in Homer (who has " *)« and " )).
It first occurs at Hes. Th. 445 (‘herd of cattle’), where it is said that
Hermes and Hecate oversee the animals’ reproduction, and is then
found at Hdt. 1.114.1 (= ‘pastures’ or ‘herdsmen’s quarters’) and A.R.
1.627 (= same meaning as here).
0 : B. Martin (1605, 37) quotes this verse with 3) which he
emends to 3 .
Lines 496–501, 501b–502 545
499–502 cf. 53–54 and 418–20 (with nn.). The similarity with 418–20
suggests that Apollo is closely following Hermes’ steps in playing the
lyre as he is essentially his disciple in this art.
499 " : see 423n.
500 A combination of 314 ([(« $)μ« ¹*«) and Ν< ' «
#A*)) (see 333n.) As this is an important moment in the divine his-
tory (Apollo performs on the lyre for the first time!), the god is given a
whole-line presentation; cf. the extensive presentation of Hermes at 73
M« ¹μ« 1! « #A φ*(« as he is about to steal Apollo’s
cattle.
501 3 «: the MSS read )«; cf. 53n. and 419n. B. Mar-
tin (1605, 370) who proposed this emendation remarked: “erratum
credo fuit librarii )&«.”
501b–502 π # Dμ " | <, "μ« # Dμ μ

Ν : I follow M’s reading. At 502 offers ¹ * instead of ! -
), which is adopted by Càssola and Richardson. Cantilena (1993,
123–24) argued that ! ), ‘awesomely,’ indicated the novelty of
the lyre’s sound for Hermes (54) and Apollo (420); however, here
Apollo is familiar with the music of the lyre, hence the poet describes it
as ¹ * ‘lovely.’ But there is no indication in the text that the lyre’s
sound, however novel, frightened Hermes or Apollo, who had to be-
come accustomed to it in order to appreciate the beauty of its sound;
notice that Apollo is said to have laughed at 420, which precludes any
notion of fear. Thus ¹ * should not be adopted instead of ! -
) here. The corruption may have been influenced by Il. 18.570
¹ * &α ) # Kμ )μ Ν (cf. [Hes.] Sc. 202). See
also 54n.
At 502 Ν is the reading of all MSS, and should not be emended
to Ν, as Ilgen 465 proposed, comparing h.Herm. 54 and 420. In
those verses the imperfect is followed by a summary of the god’s song
and can be construed as inceptive (Hermes began to sing of Zeus and
Maia’s affair/of the gods). Here we are presented with the fact that
Apollo simply sang to the lyre without any reconstruction of his song;
hence the punctual aspect.
546 Commentary
503–578 On Mt. Olympus

Hermes and Apollo return to Olympus, and Zeus is pleased with their
reconciliation, which continues to the present, as the poet remarks. Hav-
ing given his lyre to Apollo, Hermes creates a new musical instrument,
the pan-pipes, after which Apollo requests a solemn oath guaranteeing
the safety of his possessions. Mutual promises of eternal friendship
ensue. Apollo then declares that he is unable to give a share of prophecy
to anyone: it was entrusted to him by Zeus, and he had promised by
oath that he would not reveal it. He is willing, however, to grant Hermes
a lesser form of divination, the oracle of the three sisters on Parnassus,
which he himself had owned when younger. After a recapitulation of
Hermes’ role as the patron of animals, we hear of his role as the mess-
enger to Hades, and once again of the strong bonds of friendship be-
tween the two gods. Nagy (1982, 56–57) interprets the division of the
two gods’ spheres as “[dramatizing] the evolutionary separation of
poetic functions that are pictured as still integral at the time when
Hermes sang the theogony”, i.e. the Indo-European notion according
to which the poet combined also the function of the seer and the herald.
The god’s arrival on Olympus is a typical hymnic motif; cf. h.Dem.
484 (with Richardson’s n.), h.Apol. 1–13, 186–206, h.Hom. 6.14–18,
15.7, 19.40–47. In h.Herm. it is more appropriate to speak of a return to
Olympus since Hermes had already been there earlier when he ap-
peared before Zeus’s court (322ff.). This motif generally indicates the
closure of the poem (though note the exception of h.Apol.) and is
usually accompanied by a switch of tenses that marks the return from
the mythical past to the present time of the performance. H.Herm.,
however, continues for some seventy lines after the return to Olympus,
which runs contrary to our expectations. See Rutherford (1997, 58–61),
who discusses such “false closures” in Pindar.
This problem is related to the question of the authenticity of
503–78. Editors since Groddeck assumed this part to be a later addi-
tion, and Radermacher 218 even called it an appendix (“Anhang”). On
the various arguments proposed against authenticity, see Càssola
172–73 (who reluctantly sides with those denying authenticity), Mat-
thiae 302, Gemoll 190–91, Radermacher 156–57, Brown (1947,
148–55), and Graefe (1963, 519–20). These arguments are: (i) the men-
tion of divination as a request of Hermes at 533 (p «) although
Lines 503–578 547
no such request has been made in the previous lines; (ii) an implied at-
tempt to emphasize Apollo’s superiority. Radermacher attributed this
final part of the Hymn to an “Apolline revisionist”; (iii) 507–12 seem to
point to the end of the Hymn, since the conflict has been resolved;
hence these lines are superfluous. Brown adds to these points that (iv)
574–75 duplicate 506–508; (v) 506–508 are “rudely ignored” in 514–15;
(vi) 567 repeats the sense of 498; and (vii) Apollo’s fear that he may lose
the lyre is incoherent. Brown, furthermore, takes the magic wand of 529
to be the same as the staff that Hermes had at 210.
AHS argued against interpolation on the grounds that we do not
know much about the unity of poems composed in the 7th c. BC, but
this begs the question even if one assumes a 7th c. BC dating of the
Hymn. We may address these objections briefly: (i) Although an explicit
request for a share in prophecy has not been made by Hermes, an im-
plicit one was made at 471–72. In addition, since Hermes’ theogonic
song discusses how each god received their share of honours (428 ³«
)/ Q !«), and since it must finish with Hermes’ own
praise and timai (cf. !"), Hermes may have included proph-
ecy as his ; Apollo’s words at 533 are a reaction to such a distribu-
tion. (ii) Hermes does not deny Apollo’s superiority anywhere in the
Hymn; he actually acknowledges it at 172–73. Rather than wishing to
diminish Apollo’s status, Hermes hopes to acquire a position equal to
his. Finally, no one wishing to promote Apollo’s status would show him
afraid of his younger brother’s thievish abilities (cf. 513). (iii), (v), and
(vii) Although the conflict that arose from the cattle-theft has been
settled, nothing ensures that Hermes, a god who easily invents new ob-
jects, as the poet reminds us at 511–12, will not attempt to appropriate
any other of Apollo’s possessions through stealing and exchanging. At
521–23 Hermes assures Apollo that he will not use his craftiness against
him in the future, while Apollo promises Hermes more gifts. Hermes re-
mains an ambiguous character, but his deceitfulness is now directed to-
wards humans rather than his fellow Olympians (cf. 577–78). (iv)
507–508 (Hermes’ friendship for Apollo) and 574–75 (Apollo’s friend-
ship for Hermes) do not repeat but answer each other, and set up yet an-
other ring in the poem: 507–508 ξ E
« | [(U( φ)(! ~
574–75 8 M« ¹μ Ν< φ)(! #A*)); cf. 506 / ( #
Ν ( Z1« ~ 575 / # ( K . We observe then
the same type of arrangement (a ring towards the end of the poem) that
548 Commentary
we noticed towards the beginning (cf. 63–65n.). Douglas (2007, 126)

aptly notes regarding the ending of a work that is organized on the prin-
ciple of ring-composition: “it may make a double closure, using the op-
tion of the ‘latch.’ In this case, the first ending will finish the immediate
business, conclude the story, or round off the laws. The second ending
will set the text as a whole in a larger context, less parochial, more hu-
manist, or even metaphysical.” On ring-composition in h.Herm., see
above, p. 125–29. (vi) 567 does not simply repeat 498; rather, it resumes
what is expressed at 498 (Hermes assuming the " )) to which the
poet adds the tutelage over a number of animals.
Scholars who question the authenticity of 503–78 also attempted to
pinpoint abnormal linguistic features to support their opinion. But the
diction of the last part does not differ from that of the rest of the poem.
Besides, given the Hymn’s peculiar style, an argument based on style
would not provide cogent proof; see nn. on individual verses. At any
rate, what changes in the last part is the the poem’s overall attitude to its
subject-matter: it becomes less humorous; see above, p. 37–39.
503–510 The two gods return to Mt. Olympus with the lyre
503 0 " <« ξ 0 λ @" - : This verse is trans-
mitted in two forms; M has W "*« ξ 3 & )-
, while we read in ~ 3 "*« ξ 3 ). "*«, coupled with
( of 504, may seem to be the lectio difficilior, in that a plural
subject would be construed with a dual verb (cf. h.Apol. 456 and Chan-
traine, GH II 28–29 §36); but ( cannot have intransitive force,
as Bonanno (1970, 61 n. 5) shows: at Il. 16.657 « φ # $"«
φ1# 3 the verb appears to be intransitive, but in reality its ob-
ject is to be understood; cf. Il. 8.257 φ1 b«. The fact
that the two gods’ spheres of influence have been now separated does
not contradict the gods’ sending the cattle away before they themselves
move to Olympus; after all, both were thought of as *. According
to Bonanno, the nominative "*« may have arisen under the influence
of 504 Cλ .
For 0 " as a quasi connective, see LfgrE, s.v. 1aabb.
@" « is generally found with place-names in early epic but no-
where else used of a )@; but cf. h.Apol. 223 R « & (cf. Hes.
Th. 2, h.Aphr. 258), Pi. O. 10.45 & Ν)!«, E. Hipp. 750–51 &
Lines 504–578, 503–508 549
/@, Tr. 219 (>(!«) &…/@ . See also 72n. On the seman-
tics, see Furley and Bremmer (2001, II 83, 327).
504 & : Bonanno (1970, 62) reports that B. Marzullo pro-

posed emending M’s ( to ( (thus retaining ’s "*«
at 503), comparing Il. 23.392–93. But it seems more probable that
( is an error for ( rather than (.
μ« : cf. 323n.
505 5O $! φ : cf. 325 where it is also preceded by :μ«

)) (323).
505–506 &6 | φ!!: () @! is often

used of rhythmical movement or dance; cf. Il. 24.616, Od. 24.69, Hes.
Th. 8, h.Aphr. 261. Apollo is said to travel while enjoying the lyre also at
h.Apol. 182–87 (to Olympus) and 513–19 (to Pytho).
507 () = (Denniston GP 193): Zeus rejoiced because he had re-

conciled his two sons.
&« φ !!: not simply ‘affection’; the phrase has a
more solemn meaning, invoking a formal pact sealed by oath and the
exchange of gifts; cf. 521–32 and esp. 524 # $ )
λ φ)*(; see
Adkins (1963), Taillardat (1982), Benveniste (1969, I 341–44), and
Giangiulio (1993, 35–38). Karavites (1992, 48–58) discusses Homeric
φ)*(« in relation to the concept of ‘brotherhood,’ ‘fatherhood,’ and
‘sonhood’ found in Near Eastern official documents. Cf. also Hes. Op.
711–13 σ« | π
# « φ)*(, ( # )9 (! -
!/, | <! (speaking of a brother).
507–510 ‘And Hermes came to love Leto’s son continuously (i.e. he en-
tered a pact of friendship that lasts for ever), as even to this day there are
proofs (sc. of this pact), since he handed to the Far-Shooter the lovely
lyre, while he (sc. Apollo) expertly played it, holding it on his arm.’
507 λ 3 : the construction of this sentence changes midway, and

the is left unanswered. For such solitarium, cf. 480n.
508 &φ: cf. 507 on φ)*(. The aorist is ingressive.

550 Commentary
508–509 ³« 0 λ | #, &λ .: !7# is M’s reading;

has !
#. I do not punctuate after λ , and take !7() as the
subject of an understood !. West (2003a) posits a lacuna after 508
for which he supplies [(U(« ξ !7 φ)*(« $.
AHS took !7’ as a dative of ‘reason or occasion’ and rendered ‘with
a token’ (taking !7 as part of the -clause), while Radermacher
printed !
# which he took as equivalent to the prosaic !( α
). But the solution proposed here is the simplest and the
closest to the MSS reading.
The point here is that Apollo and Hermes’ friendship (or alliance)
lasts even to this day, and there are two things that prove this (hence
the plural !7()): Apollo is the god of the lyre (cf. …),
while Hermes as a pastoral god has created for himself and performs
on the pastoral instrument par excellence, the syrinx, at 511–12 (Cμ«
…).
³« 0 λ : the proof of what is said in these lines survives even
to the poet’s day, since Apollo is still known as the god of the lyre. This
is another piece of aetiology; see 125n.
509 (): see p. 15–22.

&!!8 looks back to 497 where Apollo gives Hermes the
! φ7; it is not a simple giving, as it implies 1(, i.e.
surety, pledge.
510 M omits this verse, but its authenticity should not be doubted:
without it the transition from 509 to 511 would be abrupt. The fact that
Hermes invented the pan-pipes is part of the proof of the duration of
his pact with Apollo. For this !
to be convincing, the poet must be
addressing an audience for which Hermes is still the god who plays the
syrinx. This appears to be the case in the 6th c. BC; see p. 146.
¹ in a musical context (though not as an attribute of an in-
strument) is found at Pi. O. 6.7 ¹ « $«, Hes. Th. 104
¹ *!! $7, [Hes.] Sc. 202, h.Herm. 452 ¹ *« " *«
C).
Ω« ² # &% "@ : ‘and he began to play skil-
fully (the lyre) upon his arm.’ @« is to be taken with what follows;
thus Ilgen (following Ernesti and Wolf), AS/AHS, Radermacher, and
Càssola; for the position, cf. Od. 20.47 C Ω *« , -
Lines 508–511 551
ξ« D ! φ)!!. At Od. 17.518–19 ([$*] Ρ« δ< |

$9 ( Ω« 3# ¹ *) @« means ‘having been taught/
having learned.’
Apollo quickly learns to perform on the new instrument; cf. 474
and 489 where Hermes twice emphasized that Apollo can easily learn
whatever he desires. Führer’s “als Erfinder” (‘as its inventor’), LfgrE,
s.v.
, , lacks parallels. The sense here is ‘having learned’
hence ‘skilled, deft.’
&% is Ilgen’s emendation of the MSS K); cf. 388
and 433. K) occurs at Theoc. 17.30 (with φ ().
"@ : the imperfect is inchoative, denoting the beginning of
an action, whose effect in the case of Apollo lasts until the audience’s
present: in other words, Apollo began to play the lyre when Hermes
presented it to him and is still the god of the lyre.
511–512 Hermes invents the syrinx

Hermes’ new invention is presented quickly and without any particu-
lars, almost as a parenthesis to the rest of the story. Contrast the abun-
dant details the poet provided during the invention of the lyre (47–51).
Each invention of Hermes is presented in progressively fewer details (cf.
109–14n.); for instance, we are not told how many reeds were used or
how they were connected to each other. Hermes appears here as the in-
ventor of the syrinx, but the instrument is usually played by his son
Pan; cf. h.Hom. 19.15, E. El. 702–703, Ion 498, Ba. 952, Ar. Ra. 230,
who is sometimes presented as their inventor; cf. Bion fr. 10.7 (with Reed
ad loc.), Plin. Nat. 7.204, and Bömer on Ov. Met. 1.689–712. Hermes
creates the pan-pipes, since he is now the shepherd-god, and the syrinx
is the shepherd’s instrument par excellence; see West (1992, 109–12).
Its creation here functions as a reminder to Apollo (and the audi-
ence) that Hermes’ nature has not changed: he is still capable of new in-
ventions. At [Apol.] 3.10.2 (III 115) Apollo offers the caduceus in ex-
change for the pan-pipes.
511 J« φ« … 5 : ‘the art of a different (musical) skill’; cf.
483n. where !φ( and /( are co-ordinated.
σ"# = σ, answering along with the preceding () the of 509;
cf. 491n. But it could also be σ ‘straightaway, on the spot.’
552 Commentary
*& : ‘sought out’ hence ‘invented, discovered’; cf. 108

μ« # /(, where the imperfect is used since the poet
presents some of the stages of the invention process. Here we are simply
given the result. Note that !! could have been used here.
512 Another explicative asyndeton; cf. 79n.

!!% & : see 360n.
"# $ : ‘audible (even) at a distance’ or ‘far-carrying’
(West). ()* and ()* are combined with words related to senses
(heard/seen from afar etc.), e.g. Alc. 34.10 []7) ) , S. Ph.
208 (lyr.) " ()* C, A.R. 4.728–29 λ ")φ
$()* 9
! | … $@ b! F)(, Theoc. 7.140,
Mosch. 2.91–22 # Ν" « Sκ | ()* λ )«
) μ Κ ( and Il. 4.455 ()*! Κ ! 3 )
7.
$ « is not found in Homer, Hesiod, or the other the Homeric
Hymns; we meet it subsequently at Hp. Insomn. 86 (VI 640), S. OT 1312,
Pl. Ti. 33c etc.
513–520 Apollo’s request for an oath

513 … μ« " 0: see 300n.
514 : see 503–78n. at (iii), (v), and (vii).

: see 155 and 392nn.
515 $ B9 «: ‘make off with’ = ; M has Ϊ )59 («, adopted by
Càssola. For the sense of $-, cf. $ & ‘snatch away (lit. up-
wards),’ an action performed sometimes by gods in epic (e.g. Il. 9.564,
16.437, 22.276, Od. 4.515 [a 1))]). $ ) is attested at
Theoc. 5.9 and possibly on the inscriptional record; cf. SEG 34: 1019
(Salerno, 520–10 BC, $ ); text uncertain) and SGDI II,
no. 1586, no. 1586 (Dodona, supplement). LSJ gloss ‘steal,’ thus draw-
ing no distinction between the simple verb and the compound. LfgrE,
s.v. $ (col. 757, l. 71) renders “wieder stehlen” (understanding “to
steal back what had been given as a present”), but this does not suit the
context since Hermes had not stolen the lyre and the bow before. At 43
the short-vowel subjunctive is transmitted ( 7!).
Lines 511–517 553
" λ ' 8: *< sometimes may refer to arrows

(LSJ s.v. *< II), but the presence of 1) renders this impossible
here. Dornseiff (1938, 82) suggests that this phrase may be a reference to
h.Apol. 131; see p. 70–73 for the relation between h.Herm. and h.Apol.
The poet hints at another version of the story in which Hermes
in fact stole Apollo’s quiver (or bow and quiver), but does not relate it
in detail; cf. D Il. 15.256, Hor. Carm. 1.10, Luc. DDeor. 11.1, Philostr. I
26. Alcaeus told this story in his Hymn to Hermes, but it is unclear
whether h.Herm. was influenced by Alcaeus, or whether both were
drawing on a common source; see Page (1959, 252–58), Cairns (1983a),
and above, p. 76–77. Epic poets sometimes hint at other stories, pre-
sumably known to the audience, on which they do not elaborate; cf. the
brief notice at Il. 1.399–406 about the gods’ attempt to bind and depose
Zeus or the competing birth-places of Dionysus cited at the opening of
h.Hom. 1, which hint at mythological variants.
516–517 ‘For you have (obtained) from Zeus the privilege of establish-
ing for humans the acts of exchange on much-nourishing earth.’
Hermes is the god of exchange, reciprocity, and mediation (cf. his ap-
pellations )«, $ «, )«, his functioning as the mes-
senger of the gods and the conductor of souls to the Underworld). Wat-
kins (1970, 345–50) compares Hermes with Vedic Pusan as reflections
of an Indo-European god of exchange and reciprocity; cf. already Otto
(71983, 122–23) and West (2007, 281–83).
516 : see 172n.

3 Z «: cf. Od. 11.302 κ μ« Z(μ« 3/«. Rader-
macher (who argued against the authenticity of 503ff.) pointed out that
(instead of *« in the Odyssean passage) is the only instance of
apocope in the entire poem; he further objected that nowhere in the
Hymn was it mentioned that Hermes was granted the ‘acts of exchange’
by Zeus. But cf. 292, where Apollo granted Hermes to be ‘the leader of
thieves among the immortals’; exchange is understood as both barter-
ing and (euphemistically) as stealing; cf. 522. As the god of prophecy,
Apollo could foresee that Hermes would obtain this honour, too, since
Hermes has already enacted these acts of exchange with him and may
have included them in his theogonic song in which he described the al-
lotment of divine timai.
554 Commentary
*& < 0!: " is Wolf’s (1825) correction of the

MSS " () or # $"( (M). Homer has "!
(Il. 6.339 ( # " Ν « ‘comes to men in turns’) and
"« at Od. 5.481 (of two bushes growing intertwinedly); at
A.R. 1.380, 4.1030 "« means ‘interchangeably.’
Hermes was the god of commerce; cf. his titles $ « and -
)« (Ar. Ach. 816 [with Olson ad loc.] and Pl. 1115; on a 5th c. kylix
from Olbia we read [Ν]« E [λ #E])o = SEG 30: 908;
Corn. ND p. 25, 7 Lang)
0! indicates a god’s activity or sphere of influence; cf. 3
#Aφ (« at h.Aphr. 1 and Clay Politics 156.
517 " : the " 3 were first enacted in the divine world,
and will subsequently be introduced to the human world. Hermes’ ac-
tions here are thus the mythological prototype for every subsequent ex-
change or theft; see 24n.
3 5" < : a variation of the frequent formula
λ /λ )" 9 ( (once with instead of ) or λ /*
)"* , which could have been used here (with $ @!).
This verse may have been influenced by Il. 11.770 # #A/U -
)"* .
518 Radermacher ad loc. and Dornseiff (1938, 81–82) argued that this
verse is a reminiscence of h.Apol. 79 $))# F )(« , ,
Ρ S*!!. Though not impossible, it seems more plausible that
both h.Apol. and h.Herm. draw on Od. 5.178 (= 10.343) 7
)(« , , Ρ S*!!. Contrary to the Odyssey and
h.Apol., the content of the requested oath is not mentioned expressly in
h.Herm.
"- ! Ρ : see 274n. At Od. 2.377 the « Ρ «
is an oath in the name of the gods that humans swear, but at Hes. Th.
784 it designates an oath sworn by the gods, i.e. the water of the river
Styx that Iris is sent to fetch (cf. 519).
519 ν φ9 '«: this is not a form of oath elsewhere. Zeus is

sometimes said to confirm irrevocably a promise by nodding his head
( 1 or 1); cf. Il. 1.528, 2.112, 8.175, 15.75, h.Hom.
1.13–5, h.Dem. 466, Pi. N. 1.14, 5.34, A. Supp. 91–92, E. Alc. 978–79,
Lines 516–521 555
Ba. 1349, Call. Dian. 40, and Schwabl (1976). In Call. Lav.Pall. 131–33
it is said that only Athena shares this prerogative with Zeus. 1
( 1, 1) can be used without any special reference to
Zeus (cf. below 521 and 524).
&λ !μ« 2<
%: cf. Il. 14.271 Ν R!!o
$ μ« 8 , h.Dem. 259 F! Ρ « $)
μ« 8 , and A. fr. 273a.11–13 i *# $ Ω< $
8 | $/ | « [!]! $. The person or
thing one swears by is usually in the accusative, though prepositions are
used in prose; see LSJ, s.v. R 3. Il. 19.188 has C# 7!
μ« «.
2< « is used of water again at Il. 4.453 (the waters of two tor-
rents). Elsewhere R" « is an attribute of humans (Il. 8.473, 10.200,
14.44, 19.408 Thgn. 1307), Ares (Il. 5.485, 13.444, 13.521, 15.112,
16.613, 17.529), Zeus’s thunderbolt (E. Ion 211–12), of a rock (Od.
9.241, 9.305), and of a load of wood (Od. 9.233–34).
Fay (1897, 89) notes the false spelling R" « that occurs in some
manuscripts (P.Lond. 81 on Il. 3.357, P.Mag.Lond. 121.224) and pro-
poses a derivation of R" « from R" « reflected in the expressions
R" 8 and S" ( (daughter of Zeus the thunderer);
Frisk, s.v. R" « rejects this, but it is possible that the ancient Greeks
perceived the two words as somehow related.
West (on Th. 785 / !9 ( /*) )@ 8 ) sees a
reminiscence of h.Herm. 519 in the reading of S ad loc. ()*" )
or a conflation of )@ with an actual variant μ« R"
8 .
520 # f &)
- ")
-: # )
). could have stood here.
521–528a Exchange of oaths

521–526 The mutual promises the two gods exchange are presented in
balanced clauses: M« ¹*« … ! | 7 # $ )5 …
| ( … (521–23) ~ [(U(« ! … | 7 φ) …
3!! | 7 * … (524–26). For such parallelism, see 482–88.
521 D 5 « : K!/*« is regularly followed

by forms of ) in Homer (cf. Il. 10.303, 13.377, Od. 15.195, 15.203).
556 Commentary
Il. 2.112 (= 9.19, 12.236, cf. 13.368; Od. 4.6, 24.335) has K!/ λ
! which could have been used here.
522 This is possibly another dig at Apollo’s acquisitiveness or a pre-

caution against Hermes’ acquisitiveness.
$ B : cf. 515 $ )59 («.
&: cf. 178–81.
523 # & ) - )%: cf. Hermes’ threat to break
into Apollo’s temple at Delphi (178–81).
524 &# $")

- λ φ: see 507n. for φ)*(«. Cf. [A.] Pr. 191 «
$ μ λ λ φ)*(; Further Il. 7.302 φ)*(
$ 7!, Thgn. 326, 1312, Call. fr. 497a $ μ # $φ « λ
φ)( 3«.
526 "μ # Ν μ« ! : this emphasizes and particu-

larizes the preceding 7 φ) Ν)) $! 3!!.
Ν :μ« * refers perhaps to Heracles, another cattle-rustler
with whom it was said that Apollo fought for the mantic tripod; Gantz
(1993, 438–39). But note that at E. Ba. 603, 725, 1342 :μ« * is
Dionysus.
526–528 ‘And I will complete an authoritative pact that will be immor-

tal (i.e. whose validity will be permanent) and at the same time by all
means trusted and esteemed in my heart.’
The switch from indirect to direct speech led Allen (1897, 266; re-
peated in AS/AHS) to posit a lacuna after 526. This is not necessary,
however, since such a switch is paralleled in Homer; cf. Il. 4.301–309,
15.346–51 (with Janko’s n.; cf. Longin. 27), 23.854–58 (with Richard-
son’s n.); cf. also Sappho 1.13–20, Liv. 1.57.7, 6.24.8–9. AS are not jus-
tified in rejecting the Iliadic parallels on the grounds that the direct
speech is preceded by a verb of command; the idea of speaking is im-
plied here in ! ‘agreed.’
526–527 & … | … : possibly in tmesi = ‘complete’ (cf. Hdt.

2.125.5 where it is used of constructing a pyramid), though the absolute
use of prepositions is attested (cf. Chantraine, GH II 83–84 [§116]).
Lines 521–528a 557
526 : i.e. 1 , cf. LSJ, s.v. )« I b.
527 '< $" : i.e. a pact whose validity will last eternally.
Editors print the MSS !1") $ ‘a pact between immort-
als.’ But this $ is otiose: we already know that the agreement is
going to be between two gods; no humans are involved. The eternity of
their pact has already been mentioned at 508–10 and is now resumed.
The fact that !1") is described by two epithets (), $-
) should not cause any offence: cf. the three epithets that describe
the staff Hermes will be receiving at 529–30 ( )), / !(,
()).
For !1") = pact, cf. Thgn. 1150, LSJ, s.v. !1") II 4, Feyel
(1946, 19–22), and Gauthier (1972, 69–70). The poet continues here
the use of the language of treaties; cf. 312 and 393nn. AS/AHS took
!1") to be the lyre (just as 509 !
), while Allen (1897a), Eve-
lyn-White, Humbert considered it as referring to an understood !, i.e.
Hermes.
# Ϊ %«: « is Richardson’s emendation for the MSS
(he keeps the transmitted $). The transmitted geni-
tive is hard to construe (Càssola seems to take it as partitive).
Though « is always followed by a negative in Homer proper (Il.
8.450–51, Od. 19.91, 20.180), we find it modifying adjectives in h.Apol.
19, 207.
Hermann, who printed $, separated # Ϊ
from the rest; this avoids the impression that humans (= ) were
involved in this pact. On the other hand, AHS rendered ‘a token for im-
mortals and everyone together’: but the !1") [= lyre, in their view]
will not be visible to everyone but only to the gods; besides, we should
expect a dative. Radermacher also saw the difficulty of this passage and
suggested that one or more verses had dropped out, which began with
$ @.
528a … λ : ‘trusted and esteemed’. For !μ !1"-
), cf. Pi. O. 12.7–8, and Isoc. 4.49 (!1") !*), where
however !1") means ‘guarantee.’
558 Commentary
528b–532 The caduceus

Apollo offers Hermes a magic wand, to be identified with the caduceus;
this action renders the agreement between the two gods ), perfect
and final. This rod differs in terms of its function from the whip Hermes
received at 497 and from the staff Hermes was said to possess at 210. Its
role will be to protect Hermes as the messenger of the gods and render
effective all divine ordinances pronounced by Zeus. Pherecydes of
Athens FGrH 3 F 131 took this rod to be the shepherd’s staff: 1(
(sc. W") C) (sc. E 9
) , ³« « "« " *)
#A7. Elsewhere Hermes uses his golden wand to send humans to
sleep and wake them up and to lead the souls to the Underworld (Il.
24.343–44, Od. 5.47–48, 24.1–10). In visual arts it is usually repre-
sented as a staff of varying length, whose lower end is often pointed
and whose tip has an open eight shaped decoration (cf. fig. 7). Some-
times its tip consists of two twigs or snakes twice intertwined with each
other.
Hermes appears once with both the caduceus and a regular staff
(see de Waele fig. 3, with p. 57–61). The caduceus was sometimes de-
picted on herms (e.g. LIMC V, s.v. Hermes nos. 78, 79, 114, 121, 123,
135, 136a). On the caduceus or ( 1 (a term that appears first at
Hdt. 9.100.1), see Boetzkes (1921), de Waele (1927, 33–79), Díez de
Valasco (1988), LIMC V 1, p. 380–81, and VIII 1, p. 728–30 for the vari-
ous shapes of its decoration. P.Oxy. XXXIV 2688.14–20 and 2689
fr. 2.18–22 transmit that Hermes constructed the caduceus himself, imi-
tating the shape of three snakes, two of which were intertwined with
each other, while the third untwined them.
529 2< λ ' : cf. Hermes’ cult-title ) « and the for-
mula @ used of him at Od. 8.335, h.Hom. 18.12, 29.8, P.Der-
veni col. vi 4. Apollo’s handing the caduceus to Hermes fulfills his
promise at 461.
6%: although no confirmation follows (contrast 496, γ« Ω
c <()), the transference of the caduceus must be taking place as
Apollo utters these words; the future tense is thus ‘performative’; see
Christensen (2010, esp. 565–67) for the marked use of the future in the
context of giving; note too that Apollo’s words form part of an authori-
tative pact (!1")).
Lines 528b–531 559
G< : this may be inspired by 7 = W")

(Od. 10.293, 12.251). W"« is sometimes used of a god’s magic wand
that has transformative powers; cf. Od. 10.238, 10.293, 10.319, 10.389
(Circe’s wand), 16.172, 16.456 (= Athena’s wand). But at Od. 12.251
W"« is a fishing rod.
530 5 : naturally gods’ possessions are golden. Athena’s wand

at Od. 16.172 is also said to be golden, just as Apollo performs on the
lyre with a golden plectrum at h.Apol. 185. But here W" / !(
prepares us for Hermes’ cult-epithet / !* «, with which Apollo
will address him at 539. Cf. also Hippon. 79.7 / !)) ')
*
in a fragment that involves Hermes.
is formed by analogy to K5()« (Zumbach 18). It
appears first here and is subsequently found at Call. Dian. 165, Nic. Th.
522 etc., where it means ‘clover,’ while ()« occurs at Nic. Th.
839, Androm. 141 (GDRK II 62).
On a Corinthian pinax (second quarter of the 7th c.), Hermes holds
a ( 1 that has a three-leaf point, in addition to its open eight-
shape decoration; see de Waele (1927, 48–50) and Chittenden (1947,
100) with Plate XXa. Apollo does not mention anything about the
wand’s decoration with intertwined snakes, which seems to have devel-
oped from the figure-of-eight decoration in the middle of the 6th c. BC;
see de Waele (1927, 78). This may provide a terminus ante quem for the
Hymn’s date; see p. 146.
$ F φ8: following the punctuation of Preller (1846,
514); cf. Od. 20.47 ξ« D ! φ)!!. Apollo’s words imply the
heralds’ immunity; cf. Mondi (1978, 69–71).
531 & : see 427n. is used of fulfilling wishes or
prayers, e.g. Il. 1.455, 8.242, 16.238. Cf. 544 )( and 559
! Q !.
" '« ‘ordinances’; Ludwich’s emendation of the MSS’s 1« is
necessary. *« is recorded at Hsch. 255, where it is glossed as -
!«, !«; cf. at Od. 9.542 (! [sc.
] ξ / !
¹ !, [the wave] ‘drove [the ship] to its destination so that it reached
the land’).
Apollo’s words show that Hermes’ role will be to fulfil the divine or-
dinances which Apollo learns directly from Zeus. For the Hymn poet
560 Commentary
both gods then collaborate in implementing Zeus’s wish. Hermes else-

where fulfils Zeus’s wish without Apollo’s involvement; cf. Il. 24.333–45
and Od. 5.43–49; in both cases Hermes seizes his wand. It would not be
correct to speak here of Hermes’ subordinate role with respect to Apollo.
What we really have is a kind of division of labor, as it were, between the
two sons of Zeus: the king of the gods decrees, Apollo prophesies (i.e.
reveals what Zeus has decreed), while Hermes implements what has
been decreed (cf. ); see Preller (1846, 514–15).
&% λ 0!% : see 46n.
For the powers of this golden staff we may compare P.Arg. 481r
4–7 which vaguely recalls the Hymn: (sc. Zeus) ¹ W"
/ !( !7 , | !(« C 7 (
/(«. | !L 9
3"( :μ« ¹μ« '[]
« φκ | »! b
7.
532 Ρ φλ & μ« >φ«: see 471–72n.
533–566 Discussion on divination

Apollo refuses to give Hermes a share of the art of prophecy as it is
practiced at Delphi because he is bound by an oath to this effect. There-
after he explains briefly the way in which his oracle operates, in a pas-
sage that bears some similarities with Hermes’ earlier description of the
lyre (475–88). Characteristically, Apollo does not explicitly mention the
temple at Delphi but rather his personal reaction to the visitors’ ques-
tions; cf. Heiden (2010, 417). He finally grants Hermes a different kind
of prophecy, operated through the bee-maidens. Scholars often remark
that this is a lesser form of prophecy, but we should also bear in mind
that, in the end, both gods’ prophetic abilities show some similarities:
Like the Pythia, the bee-maidens prophesy only when in a state of in-
spiration (induced by the consumption of honey); both oracles are lo-
cated in the vicinity of Parnassus; and both gods may reveal the future
to humans or lead them astray.
533 ‘As for the (gift of) prophecy, dear fellow, which you have been ask-
ing continuously about …’
: see 472n.
φ: see 208n.
Lines 531–535 561
«: = M’s reading, adopted by Radermacher who con-

sidered φ« a conjecture by someone who had noticed the ap-
parent contradiction between p « and the lack of an explicit
request; in Radermacher’s view, these verses originated from a poem in
which Hermes had insistently (“eindringlich”) asked for the mantic art.
But this is precisely what Hermes has been doing at 469–73 (and per-
haps in his second song), and there is no reason to posit that this detail
derives from an alternative Hymn to Hermes.
φ«, the reading of >, is most often used of kings, either in
the formula φ "!)7/ φ« "!)
« (e.g. Il.
1.176, 2.196, 5.463 [¹*«], Od. 4.63, Hes. Th. 82, 992, h.Hom. 7.11),
with proper names of kings, or in the phrase φ &(
(Il. 2.660, 4.280). Scamander is the only divine figure of whom -
φ7« is used.
o & «: ‘which you ask about’ (so Gemoll, AHS, Richard-
son); cf. Il. 6.145 ( κ «, and Hermes’ ) »« at 464.
This need not be preceded by an explicit request for divination, as
AS and Radermacher thought, who took « to mean ‘ask for, de-
mand.’ There is no contradiction here: Hermes emphasized prophecy
in the introduction to his speech to Apollo at 471–72. Talking re-
peatedly about something may indicate that the enquirer covets this
thing, and Apollo understands Hermes’ innuendos. Apollo picks up a
point raised in Hermes’ earlier speech, just as his description of the bee-
oracle at 550–65 resembles the description of the lyre’s ‘questioning.’
On the issue of Hermes’ covert request for the art of prophecy, see now
Adorjáni (forthcoming).
Herter (1983, 189–90) compared Od. 12.259 ( Ρ!!#
*(! * « 4)μ« < ) and with the use of at
483, 547, and 564 and rendered ‘the mantic art which you wish to try’;
but his interpretation does not distinguish between the simple and the
compound verb.
534 "φ : see 472n.
535 μ !3 ρ μ« «: ‘for Zeus’s mind knows (i.e. has decreed)

this’ (sc. that no one else know his will).
562 Commentary
536 %"λ« λ \ : !! (‘to be made trust-
worthy, to be entrusted’) sometimes involves swearing an oath; cf. Od.
15.436, S. OC 650, Th. 4.88.1, Plb. 8.15.2.
μ Ρ : in early epic it is not specified what the -
μ« Ρ « consists of; cf. Il. 19.108, 19.127, Od. 4.253, 10.381,
12.298, 18.55. At Pi. P. 4.167 Zeus is the μ« Ρ «… «.
Cf. 518n.
536–538 Apollo’s statement tells against Radermacher’s view that

503ff. was composed by an Apolline revisionist: contrary to what is said
at h.Apol. 131–32, where the newborn god claims as his prerogative the
revelation of Zeus’s will, here Apollo was entrusted with divination by
Zeus and, what is more, at 556–57 he reveals that he practiced a lesser
kind of divination in the past. On the contrary, Hermes appears capable
of many arts without having learned or practiced them: significantly,
his advice about the use of the lyre does not apply to himself since he
was a proficient performer literally from day one.
For Apollo as Zeus’s mouthpiece, cf. A. Eu. 616–18.
538 φ < : *φ occurs at [Hes.] fr. 253.1
*φ M( ( and then in very late authors (e.g. Q.S. 5.98,
Greg. Naz. Carm. II 4.95, Migne 37, col. 1512.13). It is equivalent to
/1 φ (e.g. Il. 9.554, 14.217, Od. 9.445). Elsewhere a
")7 is 7 (Il. 2.55).
539 λ ': ‘even you’; cf. Denniston, GP 293.

5: see 530n. Apollo conferred the golden staff upon
Hermes and now addresses him with the appropriate title. The poet thus
etymologizes Hermes’ appellation. Other etymologies were current in
antiquity; cf. Apoll.Soph. p. 168.34–169.2 Bekker ($μ
« W",
s )7/«· ) W φ « μ λ !-
"))22 and Corn. ND p. 21.15–16 Lang
(/ !* « ξ Ρ )1*« ! λ ² < C W!*«), Her-
aclit. All. 73.
22 Surely we should read μ ! λ ") as is indicated in Bekker’s

apparatus.
Lines 536–540, 541–549 563
540 "φ: see 472n.

φ' : the reduplicated syllable may be long (e.g. Il. 10.478,
10.502) or short (e.g. Il. 10.202, 12.280, 15.97) in epic; in tragedy it
is short (A. Pers. 662 lyr., Ag. 23, Cho. 279, Eu. 620). Schulze, QE 476,
attributes the lengthening to the following aspirate; cf. McLennan on
Call. Jov. 36. The primary meaning is ‘bring to light’; see West on Hes.
Th. 655, Knebel (1949, 65–72), and D. Bremer (1974, 192–94).
Notice the alliteration in !φ φ1! .
:' Z'«: this is a metrical alternative to ( Z1«,
beginning with a vowel. The ancients understood C 1 as
)*φ or )*φ) (e.g. Ab(BCE3)T Il. 1.498). For both
interpretations there are Indo-European parallels; cf. Sanskrit uru-vyac
(‘wide + voice’), uru-cáksas (‘wide-seeing’), and Schmitt (1967, 157–59),
who renders ‘wide-seeing.’ The epithet typically describes Zeus. If it
was understood as ‘loud-speaking,’ as seems to be the case at Fr. Adesp.
1008 PMG C 1 ) $ !*φ | $1 !
(cf. also Pi. P. 6.23–24 K , | " 1 ! »
1), it is particularly apt after !φ.
541–549 The poet brings the Hymn to an end by showing how Hermes
and Apollo are fundamentally similar: they may both harm or benefit
mortals, are related to music and divination, and their speeches present
similarities. For the similarities between Apollo and Hermes, see Herter
(1976, 230–36).
Even though some of the phrasing of 541–42 resembles that of
577–78, there is an important difference: Hermes’ attitude towards hu-
mans depends on his whim, whereas Apollo’s is related to humans’ cor-
rect preparation in matters pertaining to divination. At the same time,
Apollo is disclaiming any responsibility for men’s failure to understand
his oracles.
Lines 541–42 are a short unit set off by ring-composition ($ @-
~ $ φ)# $ @) that presents the general principle
(‘I shall harm or aid humans’), which is then further explained at
543–49 in chiastic order.
541. ()7! S7!
X
543–45 $7! 549. 4)( ²μ ρ!
564 Commentary
541 : i.e. by accepting his gifts but providing him with a de-
ceitful answer. The fault, however, rests with the mortal; cf. 546–49 and
578 1.
542 3 % : cf. Od. 9.465 )) « (

)),
where Odysseus and his men drive off Polyphemus’ flock. The poet
implies that humans are confused by Apollo, who urges them through
his cryptic oracles to one action or another. Such a thought would not
suit a devotee of Apollo and contrasts with h.Apol. 252–53.
φ# $!% $ "6% : cf. A. Supp. 641–42 (lyr.)
# ¹ « :μ« | # $ . $ « is someone who
cannot be envied because his existence is wretched; Buttmann (1865,
I 246–48).
543–549 On the preliminaries to the consultation of an oracle, see

Bouché-Leclercq III 82–83 with n. 5 and 99–100. Line 544 suggests that
ornithomancy was among them. Paus. 10.6.1 records that Parnassus,
Poseidon’s son, founded the first city in the area of Delphi and
invented divination by observing birds’ flight; cf. Amandry (1950,
57–59). Ornithomancy was attributed to Apollo as well (cf. 213), but
does not appear to have been one of the preliminary practices at the
Delphic oracle. On the way the Delphic oracle operated, see Bowden
(2005, 12–39).
Plu. 435b–c mentions sprinkling the sacrificial victim with water; if
the animal shivered, the day was considered ! (cf. E. Ion 421).
Otherwise, the Pythia would not give an oracle. The visitor would also
sacrifice a cake ()«) before entering the temple; see Parke and
Wormell (1956, I 32, 43 n. 66), who cite two treaties regulating the
prices charged to citizens of Phaselis and Skiathos. Such preliminaries
were not confined to Delphi; cf. [Hes.] fr. 240.10–11 χ« κ )Ω
μ Ν" < 9 ( | φ <#> 3)9 (! !L «
$! (at Dodona).
543 >φ«: ‘oracular voice’; see 471n.

C# $7! in M and A is surely due to 545.
544 φ% 9
# ξ 9
is Ruhnken’s emendation of the MSS φ7 #
*(! (M) and φ9
λ 1!! (). 1!! may be a
Lines 541–546 565
gloss; 7 occurs at Od. 5.337, a suspect verse but apparently accepted

by Aristarchus; cf. Heubeck, West, Hainsworth (1988) ad loc. 7 is
subsequently found at Arat. 278 (= ‘flight’).
Omens were taken on the basis of the direction of a bird’s flight; cf.
Od. 2.181–82. Apollo mentions there only the cries and flight of birds,
but the ancient Greeks also observed their Q and ; cf. S.
Ant. 1001–1004, Bouché-Leclercq I 135–6, Stengel (1920, 57–59),
Green on Ov. F. 1.448, and above, 213n.
% +% - : )7« is used of sacrificial victims, e.g. Il.
1.315, 2.306, Od. 4.352, h.Hom. 1.12, h.Apol. 249; cf. 129n. Here it de-
signates omens whose fulfilment is certain, as opposed to those termed
5) at 546. Cf. )* ( at Il. 8.247, 24.315 (an-
other omen) with Richardson’s n., Tyrt. 4.2 « λ )-
# 3, and ! at 559.
545 ≈ 543.
:# $%: this clausula recurs in this sedes, sometimes pre-
ceded by a statement that explicitly refers to deception; cf. Od. 4.347–48
(C r @ | Ν)) ξ< F )*, C# $7!),
17.139 < … )*, Thgn. 1285 (C *))
)1!, C# $7!«). Cf. A.R. 3.152 _ *
< C# $7! (Aphrodite to Eros, in a passage that alludes
to h.Herm.; cf. p. 115).
546–549 ‘But whoever, trusting in vainly speaking birds, wishes to ask

for my oracle contrary to my intention, and to know more than the
ever-lasting gods, I declare, he will go on a vain journey, but I might re-
ceive his gifts.’ You cannot force a god to prophesy; cf. E. Ion 373–80.
546 *B! ‘speaking falsely/vainly,’ is formed by analogy to ad-

jectives beginning with S5- or K5-; cf. Wackernagel (1969, 771).
Epic has 5, 5«, and we meet 5 at Hes. Th. 872
(cf. Call. fr. 714.4; Lyc. 395 51 « !*"« ‘idle boastings’).
5)*! implies that not all birds were thought to convey divine
messages; therefore the oionoskopos/oionomantis was important; cf.
Call. Lav.Pall. 123–24 ! # R /«, χ« F!« b |
Ν) λ C $λ « and Dillon (1996, 103).
566 Commentary
547 ξ : ‘contrary to my intentions’; since the preliminary omens

indicate the god’s unwillingness to grant an oracle, any attempt to ob-
tain an answer when the preliminaries are unfavourable, goes against the
god’s will and is unsuccessful. This seems to be the meaning here, rather
than that proposed at LfgrE, s.v. *« 3a (“uneinsichtig,” ‘senselessly’).
&8 : see 483n.
548 ξ "- : in view of the previous verse, ) suggests

the humans’ offensive behaviour towards the gods since they are at-
tempting to obtain something the gods have not granted them. Note
the figura etymologica ( ) * | .
549 φ# is parenthetic ‘I declare, proclaim’ and not simply ‘I say,’ as

Radermacher suggested, considering this a colloquialism and compar-
ing Herod. 3.34, 4.33, 4.50.
4 ²μ ρ : a reference to theoria (cf. S. OT 114, OC 413).
4)( ²*« is an Odyssean combination; cf. 2.273 (Κ 3# 4)(
²μ« 3!! C# $)!«), 2.318.
&!Ω - 5 ‘for I will accept his gifts (sc. without
granting an answer).’ This explains the preceding 4)(; for used in-
stead of , see Denniston, GP 169. For the implied here, see
543–49n. Apollo’s greed was proverbial; cf. Ν /) d"« C -
1 [Aesop] Prov. 180 (p. 290 Perry); cf. Treu (1889, 199) and Kurke
(2010, 55–59). Gods are said sometimes to receive men’s gifts though
they have no intention to grant them their wishes; cf. Il. 2.420 and 6.311.
550–565 The Bee-oracle

Hermes receives the bee-oracle from Apollo as an additional gift, with-
out giving something in return. This is a lesser type of divination
through which the will of Zeus cannot be revealed. The oracle consists
of three sisters, whose heads are covered with barley and who dwell on a
ridge of Parnassus. Its veracity depends on the sisters’ consumption of
honey. It is striking that there is no mention of Delphi in Apollo’s leng-
thy discussion on divination (except perhaps a hint at 556).
Hermes’ connection to divination and oracles is not well attested in
the ancient sources. Paus. 7.22.2–3 mentions Hermes’ statue at the
agora of Pharai in Achaia next to which operated an oracle. Whoever
Lines 547–549, 550–565 567
wished to consult it, would come at night, burn incense at the hearth
located in front of the statue, fill the lamps with oil and light them, and
deposit on the altar located on the right-hand side of the statue a local
coin called /) «. Then he would whisper his question into the god’s
ear and leave the marketplace with his ears covered; once outside the
boundaries of the agora, he would uncover his ears and consider the
first word he heard as the god’s oracle; see Bouché-Leclercq II 397–400,
who surmises that the so-called K)(* ¹ * at Smyrna, mentioned
at Paus. 9.11.7, was sacred to Hermes. Finally, Paus. 9.39.7 records that
the two boys who attended those wishing to consult the oracle of Tro-
phonius were called Hermai. For Hermes as an oracular god, see Herter
(1976, 234–36).
Richardson ad loc. remarks that “Apollo is surely being deliberately
mysterious in this description, which lends these characters an awesome
dignity” and refers to Amandry (1950, 64) (“ce text est sans doute de
ceux, qui sont condamnés à ne jamais recevoir d’explication assurée”).
This cryptic description is in fact a riddle, just as that mentioned at 38
and 296. Note the opening formula and the paratactic style; cf. Ohlert
(1912, 155), who tentatively includes this passage among the “Worträt-
sel,” i.e. riddles that include one or more words that help in finding their
solution. Zanetto (1996, 282), too, points out the “sibylline” style of
Apollo’s description of the bee-oracle as if the style of Apollo’s speech is
matched to its content. It is very apposite that such riddling description
comes from Apollo, the riddling god par excellence (Loxias); cf. Bowden
(2004, 49–51), Johnston (2008, 51–56). On riddling, prophecy, and
poetry, see p. 15–22. At any rate, this description adds yet another point
in which Hermes and Apollo are similar, their riddling language.
Crucial in this passage is the identification of the three maiden
sisters. Many scholars, following Hermann’s emendation of 552 (>
[sic], better > , instead of ! [M] or []), have con-
sidered them to be the Thriae, deities involved in some type of clero-
mancy. These are mentioned by Pherecydes of Athens (FGrH 3 F 49 =
217 Dolcetti), who does not associate them with Hermes (or Apollo) at
frr. 130–31 (= 163–64 Dolcetti), and by Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 195:
))λ "*), « Ν «: d)*/ *« φ(!
Ρ 1φ / μ P !*, φλ #A*))«, «, -
) > , $φ# o b λ 5
φ λ ) λ μ
1! »!. Ν)) ξ )! κ #A(» K κ
568 Commentary
κ 57φ 7. x« C 1!(« »)) :)φ

/ (!, μ : / &* ) #A*)) 5
!
!
κ 57φ 7. Cf. also Jacoby’s comments on these
passages, in which he collects all the relevant lexicographic material;
add Hsch. 3059 &α , $μ ,
and Call. Hec. 74.9 (with Hollis’ n.). Jacoby posits a development of the
Thriae prophecy between the time of the Hymn’s composition and
Philochorus during which the bee-prophecy was replaced by a pebble
oracle. The ancient testimonia are also presented in Wilamowitz (1984,
I 372–74), who links the > with the ‘white maidens’ mentioned in
Cic. Div. 1.81 ego providebo rem istam et albae virgines (on the occasion
of the Gauls’ attack on Delphi).
Hermann introduced the Thriae into the text on the basis of Philo-
chorus’ fragment in combination with the account preserved in [Apol-
lod.] 3.10.2. (III 115): E
« ξ 1« « "« !1
) (<« !1 &. #A*)) ξ λ 1( ")*« )-
", κ / !
W" p ( " ). ² ξ λ
1( )" $λ
« !1 « λ κ κ ). λ L«
! κ 57φ 7. The first to express doubts
about Hermann’s emendation was Radermacher, followed by Feyel
(1946, 8–9) who rejected it altogether. H.Herm. mentions an oracle
whose prophecies are related to bees, while the Thriae practiced divi-
nation by pebbles (5
φ). Ps.-Apollodorus furthermore may have
used other sources beside h.Herm.: in the Hymn, Apollo’s golden wand
is not the same as the shepherd’s staff, while Hermes is not said to have
invented the pan-pipes in order to exchange them for anything else
(on the issue of the sources of the Hermes story in Apollodorus, see
above, p. 94–97). Cleromancy was associated with Hermes (cf. )
«
E , 129n., and Grottanelli 2001), but such a form of divination is
not mentioned in our text. It was practiced at Delphi as an alternative
to the consultation of the Pythia, whose appearances were limited; see
Amandry (1939, esp. 195–200), Parke and Wormell (1956, I 18–19),
contra Fontenrose (1978, 219–23). It must have been an extremely old
form of divination whose technical language survived in phrases such
as $) ² *« or <! / (!*«. On the problems with Her-
mann’s emendation, see Latte (1939, 832) and Scheinberg (1979, 8–9).
Larson (1995) identifies the three sisters with the Corycian
Nymphs on the following grounds: they are linked to both Hermes and
Lines 550–565 569
Apollo, their home is located under a ridge of Parnassus, and a humble

form of divination is practiced in their cave. But there are some pro-
blems with this identification: the Bee-sisters appear to have been Apol-
lo’s ! ) in the mantic art (556), which is nowhere said of the
Corycian Nymphs. The form of divination practiced in the Corycian
cave used knucklebones and dice, a large number of which were found
in the Corycian Cave; see Larson (1995, 347, 356 n. 50); on this type
of divination, see Frazer on Paus. 7.25.10. The link with Hermes
is tenuous: it is based on the affinity between the Corycian Nymphs
with Pan and on the assumption that Pan supplanted Hermes in his
role as the companion of nymphs. Amandry (1984, 398), however, ob-
serves that the cult of Pan in the Corycian Cave must have been intro-
duced after the Persian Wars and that it is very likely that the Nymphs
were originally worshipped there alone. Finally, the connection with
bees and honey rests on the association of bees with caves (cf. the pres-
ence of bee-hives in the Cave of the Nymphs on Ithaca). Larson’s hy-
pothesis that the visitors to the cave would offer a honey libation to
Hermes and the Nymphs before consulting the oracle is not borne
from the text. Finally, Roscalla (1998, 32–33) sees in the bee-oracle a
testimony for an earlier cult of a Magna Dea whom Apollo succeeded
at Pytho.
One might also think of the depictions of a bee-woman on metal
plates discovered in tombs at Rhodes, dating from the end of the 7th
century BC (see LIMC VI, s.v. Melissa, nos. 2–8, Laffineur [1978, 51–56]
with plate II.2–3 and XXII.4): the upper body is that of a woman, while
she has the lower body of a bee, and her arms and wings are open. The
female torso resembles that of a potnia theron, and she has been linked
to the Artemis Ephesia (cf. LIMC VI.1, p. 444–46 and Giuman [2008,
39–43]).
What is the connection between bees and divination? Certain
priestesses or attendants were called )!!: cf. Ar. Ra. 1273 (Arte-
mis); Call. Apol. 110 with Williams’ n., Porph. Antr. 18, Hsch. 719,
Theoc. 15.94/95a, EM p. 577.4. At Pi. P. 4.60 the Pythia is called
)!! :)φ«. Pi. O. 6.45–46 transmits that Iamos, who became a
seer, was nourished with honey brought by two serpents; cf. Cook
(1895, 5), Sourvinou-Inwood (1991, esp. 197 with 212 n. 26); also
Herren (2008, 45–49) and Bounas (2008, 69–72) both of whom unjus-
tifiably identify the Hymn’s bee-maidens with the Thriae. Paus. 10.5.9
570 Commentary
furthermore records the tradition that the second temple at Delphi was
constructed from beeswax and wings and that it was sent by Apollo to
the Hyperboreans; see Sourvinou-Inwood (1991). Ar. Nu. 508
(p. 114–15 Holwerda) and Paus. 9.40.1–2 mention that the Boeotians
discovered Trophonius’ grave guided by a swarm of bees; when some of
them descended, they found two serpents to which they offered honey-
cakes. The relation between bees and priestesses/prophetesses is not a
Greek phenomenon; cf. Zonar. Epitome Historiarum 1.23 (= I p. 69
Dindorf) :"@ « φ
«, () ξ μ R )!! …,
and J. AJ 5.204.
Although a bee-oracle is not mentioned elsewhere, special powers
have been ascribed to bees: to the discovery of the oracle of Trophonius
we may add that the Muses in the form of bees guided the Athenian
settlers in Ionia; cf. Philostr. Im. 2.8.5 (II 352–53 Kayser). In these
stories the bees do not function as prophets themselves; rather, the hu-
mans’ chance encounter with them proves to be beneficial. In other
words, their role is similar to that of an Q , like the tortoise at the
beginning of the Hymn; cf. 565 and Bouché-Leclercq I 148. Finally, it
will be remembered that Pindar, who sometimes speaks as the Muses’
φ7(« employs the image of the bee for the poetic art; cf. P. 6.54,
10.53–54, fr. 152; cf. Bacch. 10.10, Ar. Av. 748–50 (lyr.), Ec. 973–74
(lyr.), AP 7.13 (= HE 2563–66).
The description of the bee-oracle’s operation with its emphasis on
the bees’ sound and movement is reminiscent of the principles of orni-
thomancy (see 544n.). For West (2003a, 157 n. 40) this passage conflates
the Thriae with “a rustic form of divination in which honeycombs were
put out for swarms of wild bees, and inferences were drawn from the
direction in which they flew off.” Perhaps these maidens are composite
figures ad hoc invented, which combine poetic and prophetic skill, but
are not to be associated with any known nymphs and nymph-cult.
On bees in general, see Robert-Tornow (1893), Olck (1897), Körner
(1930, 81–86), Herren (2008), and Bounas (2008). For the bee-oracle,
see Latte (1939, 832). For the prophetic beliefs associated with bees in
various cultures, see Hopf (1888, 203–208), Radermacher 171 n. 1, and
Scheinberg (1979).
The description is reminiscent of h.Apol. 257–74 where Telphousa
advises Apollo against founding his oracle near her spring; see above,
p. 55–56.
Lines 550–565, 550–552 571
550 Ν &%: this phrase is found 17x in this sedes in Homer
(and once at Emp. 8.1 D.-K.). It is never followed by an address as it is
here; instead we often find the clausula !L # λ φ !λ ")) !9
!
(exc. at Il. 15.212, 23.82, Od. 24.248).
550b–551 M« & « ¹ξ | λ μ« +!5 , "- & '
) : an impressive honorific address to Hermes, the longest in the
Hymn, that introduces the new gift Hermes is about to receive. It con-
sists of the god’s parentage and one of his main functions, i.e. elements
we met in the proem. 1 is actually a paraphrase of
3 Ν) $ 1.
M« & « ¹: see 89n.
+!5 : see 396n.
The orginal meaning of (< ‘distribute’; see Frisk,
s.v.) must have been ‘dispenser, distributor,’ as it is here: Hermes is ad-
dressed as ‘the gods’ swift dispenser’ in his capacity as their messenger;
cf. also 126–29 where he organizes the dais eise and distributes the por-
tions of meat equally. In Homer may refer to a specific god
(even Olympians), to an unnamed divine power, or to one’s lot or des-
tiny. At 138, 343 it was used of Hermes in the second sense. Elsewhere,
may indicate an intermediary figure between gods and hu-
mans; cf. Hesiod’s men of the Golden Age who became « after
their death (cf. West on Hes. Op. 123); at Hes. Th. 991
suggests that may not be equivalent to a (higher) god (cf. West’s
n.); and at Smp. 202e–203a μ * appears to be an intermediate
between gods and humans (but at Pl. Cra. 398c it is etymologized from
7). See Nilsson (1955, I 216–22) who points out that the
was thought to be responsible for the unexpected and irrational, Bur-
kert (1977, 278–82), Rexine (1986), and Suárez de la Torre (2000). For
, cf. , a term designating an inferior deity that
appears on an inscription from Amphipolis (BCH 22 [1898] 350
T7 8) , 2nd c. A.D.) and on P.Oxy. XLVIII 3396
(4th c. AD).
552 : = M; () is an early corruption probably due to

the maidens’ number. On Hermann’s emendation (> ), see 550–65n.
and Amandry (1950, 62–64).
!*« is not found in Homer or Hesiod, but goddesses and
572 Commentary
nymphs are often called ! in the Homeric Hymns and in lyric
poetry: cf. h.Dem. 1, 478, 486, h.Hom. 30.6, PMG 937.7; cf. also
Solon 4.14 ! : (« ) and Scheinberg (1979, 14–5).
Feyel (1946, 11–15) emended to
on the basis of two glosses
in Hesychius: 948 !
α !
. λ $ *) and ! 1239 !
-
α )!! ¹ ( */ - ¹
. He further hypothes-
ized that !
/!
was the name of the attendants of a Bee-god-
dess. The glosses, however, do not support such an idea, and it is hard to
explain why the attendants would be called ‘beehives’ or ‘honeycombs,’
when the term )!! was readily available and widely used. As this
description is a riddle, Apollo appropriately never reveals the name of
these figures.
! « +: for explanatory following an expression deno-
ting the giving of information (Ν)) ), see Denniston, GP
59 (2). Riddles commonly begin with a phrase to the effect ‘There is/
are …’, or ‘I am …’; see Ohlert (1912, 243).
! !!): groups of nymphs are often presented as
sisters, e.g. the Charites, Muses, Graiai, and Fates. For artistic represen-
tations of Hermes with nymphs, cf. LIMC, s.v. Hermes, nos. 347–52.
553 " : is emphatic, just as ! of 552 and « of 553.

R9
$! '! is at this point ambiguous:
do these nymphs rejoice in their own wings, in birds’ wings, or insects’
wings? The image is clarified at 558. At Hes. Th. 269 where % 9 («
1!! is used of the Harpies.
554 )«: nymphs and other divine figures often appear in triads; see
Usener (1903).
3 ξ μ« ! Νφ : ‘their heads
sprinkled with white barley-flour.’ Several interpretations are possible
here: (i) The description calls to mind the (φ* , who were said
to have their heads sprinkled with flour; cf. Hermipp. 25 —! ¹
(φ* | ) ! $)φ! «, Ar. Ec. 732 Ρ«
r ( (φ 9
«. (ii) Amandry (1950, 60–61) sees a refe-
rence to alphitomancy (on which, see Ganschinietz [1918a]); Apollo
was called $) *« according to Hsch. 2903 (cf. Phot. 930).
But as 560–63 make clear, honey and not flour was their means of
divination. (iii) Wilamowitz associated these figures with the ‘white
Lines 552–557 573
maidens’ mentioned at Cic. Div. 1.81 (see p. 568), but these were inter-
preted as snow-flakes; cf. Wardle ad loc. (iv) It has also been interpreted
as a metaphor for white hair (Matthiae [tentatively], AS; cf. Ar. fr. 553),
or (v) as pollen that covers the head of the bees (Ilgen, Cook [1897, 7],
Radermacher).
The expression is deliberately ambiguous and does not allow us to
discern yet whether Apollo is describing anthropomorphic figures or
real bees.
Note finally that Ν)φ ) is sometimes mentioned in a ritual
context in epic though different from the one implied here; cf. Od.
10.520 = 11.28 (λ # Ν)φ )1), h.Apol. 491 = 509 ( #
Ν)φ ) 1).
555 Dμ 5λ P ) = h.Apol. 269. This means probably that
they dwell in a cave as nymphs often did; cf. Larson (2001). Zeus was
reared by bees (or a nymph named Melissa) in a Cretan cave (Call. Jov.
46–51, D.S. 5.70.5).
556 «: see 472n.

$ ": i.e. far from Delphi. By using the bee-oracle, Hermes
will stay away from Apollo’s temple, something that was a great con-
cern for Apollo (cf. 523). It also hints at the fact that nymphs were wor-
shipped in the countryside, i.e. away from human settlements.
: this occurs first here. The maidens appear to be Apol-
lo’s instructors in the mantic art. Nymphs elsewhere are said to fulfil a
kourotrophic function; cf. h.Aphr. 277 and Scheinberg (1979, 5).
In A. Eu. 279 Orestes calls call Apollo a ! )«, as he has
instructed him on the course of action to follow. At S. fr. 771 Apollo’s
‘didactic’ quality depends on the listener’s !φ, in a formulation that
is very close to what is said about prophecy in h.Herm.: λ μ μ
<!, | !φ« ξ
!φ $, |
! « (‘dull’) ξ φ) $ " / ! ).
o &λ < : see 200n.
557 )« 0# &Ω : )» occurs first at Hes. Op. 316. For
imparting knowledge one has acquired in childhood, cf. Thgn. 27–28
K7! s C*«, | K1 #, $μ $ « 3# Ω
3.
574 Commentary
Apollo claims to have practiced this form of divination when he was

young while tending his cattle. This is an important statement: the poet
offers here (just as at 535–38) an account of Apollo’s history as a
prophet that differs from h.Apol., where the god claimed the right to re-
veal Zeus’s will as soon as he was born. Instead, Apollo says here that
he acquired this privilege later, after spending some years practicing an
inferior form of divination. Second, Apollo’s initiation in divination
by the three sisters reminds of Hesiod’s poetic initiation at Th. 29–34:
both occurred in the mountains while the initiates were tending ani-
mals; both characters are initiated by female figures who may or may
not speak the truth.
Finally, Apollo’s development as an oracular divinity, who, starting
from a humbler form of divination, obtains the most prestigious oracle
leads one to think that a similar progression in the field of prophecy
might be possible for Hermes as well, who is now beginning his career
as a prophet in the same manner as Apollo did. One would hardly ex-
pect an Apolline revisionist to imply such a possibility.
κ # &μ« : $!@ : $)& is Hermann’s emendation
of the MSS’s $) ($) p). In early Epic $)1 is not
found negated; with negatives $)& is used. Cf. 361n.
Zeus (= κ *«!) did not care that Apollo was practicing divi-
nation through the bee-oracle. Since the bee-oracle does not always tell
the truth, it cannot communicate the unerring will of Zeus; contrast Pi.
O. 6.65–66 where Apollo grants Iamus $ 1 5
Ν. It is also possible that the bee-oracle is viewed as a form of
divination appropriate for younger gods.
558 6 Ν Ν9 : cf. Il. 2.462 (φ) S ) 3 λ
3 $))* 1!!. The MSS here have Ν))#
# Ν))9( which was rightly emended by Schneidewin (1848, 698). The
hiatus in Ν)) Ν))9
( is common; see West on Hes. Op. 713.
559 < : ( does not occur in Homer, but is found at

Hes. Th. 597. This was Zeus’s nourishment (offered by an attendant
named M)!!) in Crete; cf. Call. Jov. 49. It was also said that poets
were fed honey by bees at a young age; see Cook (1895, 8). Honey was
considered a means of poetic or prophetic inspiration; see Scheinberg
(1979, 22–24).
Lines 557–560 575
On < , see 27n.

Z: for , see 427 (with n.) where it
is brought about by Hermes’ singing. For the idea that the bees accom-
plish their oracular pronouncements, see above 544n. ()( -
): Since they speak with divine authority, their words constitute
part of the fulfilment; cf. E. Ion 461–64 d"(« 3 »« |
!*φ)« '! | / ) | 1 .
See above, p. 18–19.
560 Ρ ξ "% : for the subjunctive with Ρ, see Chantraine, GH

II 256 (§379). On the spelling of , see Schulze QE 312–16 and
Chantraine, GH I 372 (§177).
"% is properly used of raging natural forces (e.g. rivers, winds; cf.
Hes. Th. 109, 874, Anacr. 347.17) or of intense emotional states (Il.
1.342). or « is a Bacchant or inspired woman, A. Th. 498, 836
(lyr.), Supp. 564 (lyr.) S. Ant. 1151, A.R. 1.636, Plu. Mor. 249e, 293f, Str.
10.3.10 (p. 468 C.); a festival > was celebrated in honour of Diony-
sus in Elis (Paus. 6.26.1). Here refers to the nymphs’ mantic ex-
citement caused by the consumption of honey.
&) 5% : honey was associated with Dionysus and
Bacchic frenzy; see Cook (1895, 6), Elderkin (1941, 129 n. 20), Schein-
berg (1979, 16–19), and Roscalla (1998, 65–66). It was also thought to
inspire truthful pronouncements; see Waszink (1974, 9–12). The frenzy
that honey induces in the prophetic bees is similar to that experienced by
poets according to Pl. Ion 533e–534b; see Murray (1996) ad loc. Plato
further compares the poets’ psychological state with that of the seer and
the diviner (534e); cf. Scheinberg (1979, 16–22) and above, p. 19 n. 47.
Irwin (1974, 56–60) argues that 5%« was originally a conven-
tional epithet that meant ‘liquid’ or ‘moist’, as it is applied to dew, tears,
wine, and blood, despite their different colours. But Dürbeck (1977,
108–16), on the basis of more extensive material that includes also
prose texts and comparanda from other IE languages and spans a much
longer period of time, concludes that 5%« originally referred to the
freshness of vegetation; already in Homer it may describe things other
than vegetation, e.g. the paleness caused by fear or yellow honey; from
the 6th century on, it may designate the colour of vegetation, but also
liquids that are neither green nor yellow (e.g. freshly-spilt blood or
tears); cf. Bissinger (1976, 739).
576 Commentary
562 $ φ"-: not in Homer (who has $*!φ), but it is

found at h.Dem. 158, S. OT 480 (lyr.), Ph. 979.
"- π) &% : honey was sometimes regarded as the food
of gods, equivalent to ambrosia; Call. Jov. 49, Porph. Antr. 15–19,
Roscher (1883, 25), Cook (1895, 7–8), Olck (1897, 448–49).
Notice the alliteration in π 7.
563 B' ? # $% : = x (in margine). All

MSS offer - ξ< ²μ π1 (= 563a in
Càssola’s edition), discarded by Baumeister in favour of 563. Schneide-
win (1848, 699) considered that the verse in xm was genuine but had
been omitted by the copyists on account of the similarity with 563 and
proposed to keep it, emending to 51 κ 3, # $))7) #
! | !! ξ< ²μ π1. Line 563a
looks derivative, as suggested by Gemoll: its beginning resembles that
of 563 (51 - ~ -), while the rest of its
constituents occurs elsewhere in the Hymn in the same sedes ( ξ<
²*, cf. 188; π1, cf. 392). But the possibility that these are
performance variants cannot be ruled out. Variant verses are occasion-
ally found in the Homeric Hymns; cf. h.Dem. 256–57 (with Richardson’s
n. on the different constitution of these verses in P1), h.Apol. 146–50
(quoted with variants by Thuc. 3.104.2), h.Herm. 288, 322, 366, h.Aphr.
136/136a (conflated into one verse in p; see Faulkner ad loc.), h.Hom.
15.4–6 (where both versions seem to be old, and the reasons for choos-
ing one over the other are tenuous, as Càssola points out). P.Oxy.
LXVIII 4667 transmits h.Hom. 18.10–11, but there is no trace of line 12
(h.Hom. 18 appears in the collection of the Homeric Hymns to have two
concluding formulas; 10–11 = h.Herm. 579–80, 12 = / # E
/ -
, , '; West brackets 10–11, Ilgen deleted 12)
This phenomenon calls to mind the so-called “wild” or “eccentric” pa-
pyri of Homer, which omit verses or contain plus-verses that slow down
the action without altering it. Some of these plus-verses occur elsewhere
or are built from hemistichs existing elsewhere in the Homeric corpus.
Such variation may go back to the rhapsodes’ improvisation but need
not presuppose the oral transmission of the text. See Haslam (1997,
esp. 63–69), Aloni (1980, 31), Sbardella (1999), who considers the vari-
ants in h.Apol. as the deliberate interference of a redactor, and Collins
(2004).
Lines 562–566 577
For ?, see 394n. (on σ).

# $% : If the bees are deprived of honey, they
utter false responses, buzzing as they fly into each other. This implies
disorderly flight and suggests that this form of divination is based on
both the bees’ flight and their buzzing.
is sometimes used of the sound of music; cf. Pi. P. 10.38–39
()» ξ / λ | ) » "λ / # C) -
), N. 7.81 ()1φ * 8 *). of the flight of
bees occurs at Choeril. 318 SH λ ξ 7« $ 1!« | φ)#
)!7! )!!« | <F )> …
564 $%« & % : this combination occurs only here. For the
turn of phrase, cf. Hp. Ep. 18.1 (IX 382) *« μ« φ1!
7!« $ « « φ« -, App.Anth. Epigr. Demonstr.
116.1–2 (p. 309 Cougny) EC )(« … | … $ « < -
.
565 ‘and if you instruct a mortal man, he will listen attentively to your
oracular voice often, if he (actually) obtains it.’ The usefulness of the
bee-oracle for humans is doubly conditional and thus appears even
more doubtful; however, for Hermes it is a source of pleasure (κ !-
φ ).
+ … 9«: ‘if you instruct.’ This sense is conveyed by the redupli-
cated aorist in archaic epic; see LfgrE, s.v.
, B 1 a. ,
3 is used with causative force in A.R. 1.724, 3.529, 4.989 (i.e. cause
to learn, hence instruct), and our 9 (« may be its first attestation; cf.
and LSJ, Rev.Suppl., s.v. . West translates ‘teach’ with reservation,
and Zanetto (1996, 283) tentatively suggests that this may refer to
Hermes’ instructing priests; Càssola’s “se incontri” (‘meet’) is unparal-
leled.
566 « >φ«: = prophetic voice; see 471n. and Scheinberg (1979, 22).
This is to be taken $μ with 1! and 1/9 (!. This
verse probably means that it will be difficult to obtain the bees’ proph-
ecies (this is contingent upon their consuming honey); and second, that
even if one obtains a prophecy, one will have to listen to it attentively
many times, given that it will be confusing, as Hermes’ language tends
to be (cf. p. 22–25 and lines 576–78).
578 Commentary
; '59
: i.e. if he is successful in obtaining your Sφ7; cf. LSJ
s.v. / B I.
& ': ‘listen attentively’ because the god’s will is crucial for
men’s success. 1 may be used of a human heeding a god’s voice
or oracle (cf. Od. 14.327–28 = 19.296–97, S. Ph. 1417, E. Hipp. 1284).
567–573 Further gifts for Hermes

At 567–71 Hermes receives the tutelage of many animals, both do-
mestic and wild. The god was generally considered the protector of
smaller (domesticated) animals, especially sheep; see Chittenden (1947,
104–5) for representations of Hermes surrounded by wild animals, and
LIMC V, s.v. Hermes nos. 287, 380–81; and cf. Simon (1980, 299–300)
against the notion that Hermes was a “Master of Animals.”
At 572–73 Hermes becomes the messenger to Hades and thus as-
sumes his function as the psychopomp. This role is familiar from Odys-
sey 24 (though Aristarchus athetized the second Nekyia on the grounds
that Hermes never functions as the psychopomp in Homer), it is curi-
ous that the poet mentions it here in such a perfunctory way.
The earliest reflection of this role of Hermes in visual art comes
from the 6th c.; cf. LIMC, s.v. Hermes no. 610 (ca. 550 BC). On Hermes
as psychopomp, cf. A. Cho. 622, Pers. 626–29, S. El. 110, OC 1547, Far-
nell V, p. 15, 38; note his cult epithets 5/*« and *«
(Audollent, [1967] 242.10–III AD).
How is Hermes’ patronage over various animals linked to his func-
tion as psychopomp? The answer may lie in Hermes’ role as conveyor.
During a sacrifice Hermes transmits the prayers to the gods (cf. A. Cho.
124–25; he is called precum minister at ILS 3200 = Courtney [1995] no.
143, while [Apollod.] 1.7.2 (I 46–47) records that a tongue was burned
in Hermes’ honour at a sacrifice; further Farnell V 30f. and Ar. Pl.
1110a, c–e [p. 177 Chandry] π ) ) E 9

); he also transfers through fire an animal life to the Olympians.
As psychopomp he leads souls to the underworld, and sometimes leads
them back to Earth (e.g. Persephone). See Furley (1981, 52–61).
567 # 05: cf. 564 « 3 .

e « # $φ: Simon (1980, 299) draws attention to the
distinction of the verbs that define Hermes’ patronage over animals: he
Lines 566–568, 569–571 579
rules ($!!) over the animals of the herd, the dogs which protect
them, and the animals that can harm them, but merely attends to
($φ*)) horses and donkeys.
$!' « Z« < «: this is a doublet of )« Q) «
"« (Il. 9.466*, 21.448, 23.166*, Od. 1.92*, 4.320*, 9.46*, Hes. Op.
795*), a combination of "μ« $ 1) and Q) « "«.
568 Editors since Wolf unjustifiably posit a lacuna after this line be-
cause of the change in construction and (presumably also) speaker
(Apollo at 567–68, Zeus in 569–73). Gemoll suggested that the missing
lines must have mentioned Zeus, and Allen (1897, 267) proposed the
supplement γ« 3φ#α C * ξ [sic despite the fact that Hermes
and Apollo are on Olympus!] κ ZL« Cμ« 3!!
)«:
»! # ² ξ )! … West (2003a, 159) suggests that Zeus also ap-
pointed Hermes as the herald of the gods in the missing lines.
The change of speaker is considered by some editors necessary on
the grounds that Apollo cannot bestow honours on Hermes; this may
only be done by Zeus. However, Apollo had promised honours to
Hermes already at 460–62 and he attempted to usurp Zeus’s role as the
punisher at 254–59. He also acknowledged Hermes’ geras, i.e. that he
will be the leader of thieves at 291–92. Furthermore, it is not clear why it
is permissible for Apollo to appoint Hermes as lord of cows, horses,
and donkeys, while it would be inappropriate in the case of lions, boars,
dogs, and sheep. Finally, 574 seems to be the conclusion following
Apollo’s speech, with Zeus in the next line ratifying this relation of phi-
lotes between the two young gods.
The switch from imperative (or hortatory subjunctive) to infinitive
is paralleled by Il. 3.281–86: M) #A)< « -
φ9 (, | Cμ« 3# E)( / λ 7 , | π« #
7!! @ * !α | # #A)< 9 (
<μ« M)«, | T « 3# E)( λ 7 # $-
, | κ # #A « $… See Brioso (1990) and Janko
(1991, 13).
569–571 Notice the rhyming patterns: )! ~ $ *!, / !

~ 7)! ~ "!, and the alliteration of the sibilants; cf. No-
topoulos (1962, 368).
580 Commentary
569 5 ): see 194n.

$! : for the formation, see Wackernagel (1969, 769–70).
$ *! !1!! is a modification of Il. 9.539 !…$ *,
Od. 11.413 !1«…$ *«, 14.532 !1« $ *«. The prefix
$ - can mean ‘white, brilliant’ or ‘swift’; cf. Il. 24.211 ($ «
1« ‘swift-footed’; but at S. Aj. 237 it means ‘white-footed’), Il.
19.121, 20.16, Pi. O. 8.3 etc. ($ «, ‘with bright lightning’),
Pi. fr. 52m.9 ($ " = $ ), and Chantraine, DELG,
s.v. $ *«. Dürbeck (1977, 89–90) suggests “schnelle, d.i. schnell zu-
packende Zähne habend” (‘having swift teeth, i.e. teeth that grip
swiftly’) for $ * and acknowledges the possibility that the epithet
may have been interpreted as “weiße Zähne habend” (‘having white
teeth’) at a later stage.
570 Ρ φ :) 5"6 : this refers to the following »! # λ
"!. For the turn of phrase, cf. Alcm. 89.3–4 ' # Ρ!
φ ) |
« # S ! @ λ « )!!».
571 » # &λ < : ‘over all sorts of four-legged animals.’

For , see 200n. The preposition is to be understood also with )!,
!1!!, !, and 7)!.
$ : imperatival infinitive (see 568n.), which lends a special
solemnity to Apollo’s final words. For the infinitive used as the equi-
valent of a second person imperative, see Wackernagel (1950–57,
I 266). For the accusative subject, see Goodwin, GMT 313 (§784.2 and
785).
' E : see 46, 150, 298nn.
572 : ‘formally appointed’ (LSJ, s.v. ) III 2 and

Waanders [1983, 47–8]), hence ‘with full powers.’ LfgrE, s.v. ) B 8
compares it to )( , )* (, and
Z
… )!φ* , and suggests “Erfüllung bringend, zuverlässig”
(‘bringing fulfillment, reliable’). See also West on Hes. Op. 799.
573 Ρ« # Ν «… : &5 : ‘who, though he gives no gift, as we

know (= ’), will grant not the smallest honour.’ The idea is that Hades,
who normally does not grant anything to anybody and cannot be ap-
peased with any gifts, will nevertheless honour Hermes.
Lines 569–575 581
We would expect Ν« to have passive sense (i.e. ‘not having

been given’ = κ «; cf. $*«, $«); so Zumb-
ach 26 who renders “unbeschenkt, ohne Gaben” (‘not receiving any gifts,
without gifts’). But the verse requires that it be active: in other words he
who does not give, will nevertheless give to Hermes. At P.Oxy. VI 898.11
(AD 123), P.Ross.Georg. II 20.7 (ca. AD 146) Νo« means ‘unpaid.’
Hades was called $)/«: Il. 9.158, with Ab(BCE3E4)T ad loc.
which notes that there was no cult of Hades in any state and quotes A.
fr. 161 Radt (Niobe) *« >« C @ ) », | C#
Ν 1 C# ! Ν« (‘nor would you accomplish any-
thing neither by sacrificing nor by pouring libations’), | C# 3!
"*«, Cξ & (‘nor is he honoured with paeans’). | *
ξ PΩ * $! (‘Peitho stands aloof from him alone
of the gods’). Richardson points out an exception to this, the cult and
sanctuary of Hades at Elis (Paus. 6.25.2); note too Philostr. VA 5.4
ξ f ξ μ
« EC @(« , λ (‘ex-
travagant’) ! · 7 « σ "μ b λ μ -
* $ @ &.
Between Ν« … @! a wordplay similar to Hes. Op. 355
@9 ( … $@9 ( may be intended.
!«: see 291n.
: &5 : i.e. the greatest ()*(«).
574–578 Moving towards the present

With these lines we move from the mythical time of the Hymn’s events
to the present time of its performance (notice the temporal switch in
576). Zeus’s ratification of the two gods’ φ) is stressed, and we are
reminded that Hermes can still be deceptive. This way of reaching the
poem’s closure is also found in other hymnic narratives; cf. h.Dem.
483–89 (with Richardson’s n.), h.Hom. 15.6–8, 20.5.
574 cf. 507–508.
575 φ: cf. Od. 15.245–46 χ λ

φ) Z1«
# /« λ #A*)) | ( φ)*(() quoted with a dative
at [Pl.] Ax. 368a; this shows that the regularization must have been very
old.
582 Commentary
( ‘of all sorts’ is justified in view of the diversity of gifts
Hermes receives from Apollo. On φ)*(, see 507n.
5 # &" K % : cf. 506. Charis has a social dimension
that often involves reciprocity; see MacLachlan (1993, 17–18, 147–49),
who remarks that Hermes “pleased the gods, and Zeus reacted with a
return-charis, a favour of particular significance.”
576–578 Hermes’ deceitful nature is now directed exclusively against

humans, but he converses with both gods and humans in his capacity as
the messenger and go-between.
577–578 C. Robert (1906, 392) detects in these verses ( ξ σ
S(!, μ # Ν ) 1 | 1 # S φ( a parody of Od.
9.142–43 (3 ) « μ«) π* | 1 #
S φ(. Rather than parody, we have here another “parallel of sound”;
see 108n. For Hermes’ duplicitous nature, cf. also A. Cho. 812–18.
Contrast this doubtful help that may come from Hermes with h.Dem.
486–89 # R)"« Ρ# (sc. Demeter and Persephone) | φ-
« φ) / $ @· | ρ5 ¹ ! φ-
! « | P), χ« $ @« Νφ« (! !.
577 ξ σ > : e.g. through a Q , on which see 24n.

For adverbial , cf. Hes. Th. 780.
μ # Ν : ‘incalculably often’; see 216n. This may also imply
that it is difficult for mortals to discern ( ) when Hermes’ actions
are beneficent and when deceitful.
': cf. 282n. ( ).
With this comment the poet reminds us of the first episode in
Hermes’ biography, his encounter with the tortoise in which the issue of
Hermes’ granting benefits or honours to his addressee is brought up as
well. There too Hermes used his skill as 7« in a speech full of
ambiguities.
578 The Hymn marks its gloomy closing thought with a particulary
‘heavy’ verse that contains five spondees, one of only three in the entire
poem.
' # >φ : Hermes’ thievish actions took place at night;
cf. 67, 97–100, 290. He was called π7 S at 14, which sug-
Lines 575–578, 579–580 583
gests one way in which Hermes might deceive humans; cf. Greene
(2005, 347) and above, v. 97 S φ( # « … ( 1<.
579–580 The Hymn’s closure

‘I salute you thus (i.e. through the preceding song), son of Zeus and
Maia; as for me, let me remember both you and another song.’
The typical closing formula of the Homeric Hymns follows. Its
standard form consists of two lines, the first of which contains a form
of / and the vocative of the god’s name (or a periphrasis thereof
or the honorific Ν<), while the second either expresses the promise
or wish to remember the god in a future song (C Ω λ !
λ Ν))(« 7! $
«) or announces a new song (! # Ω
$ <« "7! Ν)) « 8); Richardson on h.Dem.
495 calls this a “passage formula.” There are variations to this
formula: in h.Dem. 494 and h.Hom. 20 insetad of / we meet
*φ « and b)(, respectively. Capponi (2003) discusses how this
formula, which he compares to a sphragis, effects the blurring of the
boundaries between author, narrator, enunciator, and character. The
switch from the third person of the mythic narrative to the second per-
son / (and the accompanying passage from the past to the present
time) may point to the epiphanic evocation of the god. See also García
(2002).
The “passage formula” has been used as evidence for the proemic
nature of the Homeric Hymns, a theory that goes back to F. A. Wolf; on
the prooimion, see Böhme (1937) and Thalmann (1984, 120–21). Thuc.
3.104.4–5 cites from h.Apol. as #A*))«. Hexameter
hymns may have been used as introducing epic recitation (it
will be remembered that the Iliad was introduced by the short proem
M1!« $ λ #A*)) )*<). But the longer Homeric
Hymns seem too extensive and independent to function in this way, and
the term itself is not as straightforward as it may appear: cf.
Stesich. 241 ξ λ Q .
The evidence, furthermore, from texts other than the Homeric
Hymns is conflicting. Thus the ‘Lay of Ares and Aphrodite’ in Odyssey 8
that resembles a Homeric Hymn is performed outdoors in what seems to
be a festival setting (though not a religious one) and does not function as
a ‘preface’ to another, epic song: the next song is performed several
584 Commentary
verses later, indoors, as after dinner entertainment. Demodocus sings his

last song at Odysseus’ bidding, who uses the following words: $))# Ν
κ "( λ b *! Ν! | (Od. 8.492–93). In-
terestingly, Odysseus’ words at 8.498 ()( *! #A/
ρ $«) look back to the first song on the quarrel of Odysseus and
Achilles, thus completely ignoring ‘Ares and Aphrodite.’ On the prob-
lems with the proem theory, see now Clay (2011, 237–40).
“Passage formulae” occur also in hymns embdedded in other forms
of poetry: cf. the anapaestic tetrameters, following the initiates’ hymn
to Dionysus, at Ar. Ra. 384–85 Ν ' 8 κ -
φ* "!), | :7( , !« &« )«
) (‘come now, celebrate loudly the fruit-bearing queen, the god-
dess Demeter, with new kind of hymn, adorning her with holy songs’) or
Terpander 4 (Gostoli) !λ # π« ( $! <« $κ
| '*) φ* « )7! 8« (‘but having rejected
the four-toned song, we will celebrate you with new hymns played to the
seven-stringed phorminx’), which West (1971, 307) compares with
h.Aphr. 292–93 / K1 (« !· | ! #
$ <« "7! Ν)) « 8. Cf. also Simon. 11.19–24
(cited from Sider and Boedeker) where the passage formula concludes
the ‘hymn to Achilles’ and leads into the invocation of the Muse and the
beginning of a different topic within the same poem:
[$)) !L ξ] / , »« [« ]
[ 1 (« ]) N( «· C Ω[c]
vv cv
[ )97! ] !# , [ ] M!,
[F # $] @
C/[ )·]
[3]
λ *[ )]φ [*! $]
«.
On its relation to epic proems, see Aloni (2001, esp. 92–95), Obbink
(2001), Morrison (2007, 82–83).
Hexameter hymns may have once functioned as prooimia introduc-
ing a larger epic poem on a different subject. A prime example of this
would be Hesiod’s Theogony that is preceded by a ‘Hymn to the Muses’
that has thematic links with the Theogony proper; the same applies to
the Works and Days whose opening is a (much shorter) ‘Hymn to Zeus.’
But with time, and with the insertion of an extensive mythological sec-
tion these hexameter poems may have become an independent genre,
perhaps still called , but clearly not connected to any other
Lines 579–580, 579 585
song, even though they retained the closing formula. One might think
of the medieval Sequence in the Latin mass, which began as an ex-
tended jubilatio before the recitation of the Gospel, but evolved into an
independent hymn.
It is possible that the shorter hymns functioned as introductions.
Only the late h.Hom. 31 and 32 (to Helios and Selene, respectively)
clearly announce the contents of the song to follow, i.e. the deeds of
the demigods. These two hymns seem to confirm the proemic function,
but it is hazardous to generalize from these two (late) short poems
which may reflect later practices or perceptions; cf. Gelzer (1994,
127–36). Of the longer Hymns, only h.Aphr. announces another 8«
(= hymn? or [epic] song? see 1n.), and is followed by h.Hom. 6, also to
Aphrodite: this would seem to confirm the meaning ‘I shall remember/
may I remember you …’; but oddly, this occurs only once in our corpus.
According to Koller (1956, 174–76, 195–97) the concluding formula
(! # Ω $ <« "7! Ν)) « 8 at h.Aphr. 293,
h.Hom. 9.9, 18.11) suggested that 8« designated both the short prooi-
mion as well as the following epic piece, now lost for us (hence it should
be rendered ‘having started from you I will move on to the rest of my
song’); this formula was misunderstood by later Greeks since it did not
contain the article whose use had become obligatory, and thus the hymn
came to be identified with the proem. In Koller’s view the shorter Hymns
fulfil this function as prooimia far better than the longer ones; the major
Homeric Hymns are not real prooimia but were thought of as such be-
cause they have all the structural elements of the shorter poems (with the
crucial addition of the pars epica). Nagy (2002, 73) too considers 8« a
term that covers the entire performance, i.e. the hymn/proem as well as
the following epic song. For him, the "7! formula means ‘I will
switch to the rest of my hymn’; see also Nagy (2011, esp. 322–29). How-
ever, judging from Odyssey 8 this does not seem plausible.
See Clay (2011), who argues for the originally independent exi-
stence of the major hexameter hymns, and further Aloni (1980), and De
Martino (1980).
579 λ 4 ξ
% 5): / (= both ‘farewell’ and ‘rejoice’)
marks the establishment of a reciprocal relation of goodwill between
the poet and the god who is asked to bestow blessing, happiness, or suc-
cess in song.
586 Commentary
/ is found in the closure of the rhapsodic (i.e. Homeric) Hymns.

But / in itself is no marker of closure: Alcaeus’ Hymn to Hermes
began with / K))« S «; see also 30n. and Fraenkel (1957,
169) for more examples of initial hymnic / .

%: = with (i.e. because of) the preceding song.
580 :3 &!Ω λ ) λ Ν« # $ «: this could be

either a future ‘I will remember you …’ or a subjunctive, i.e. ‘let me re-
member both you and a different song’; cf. h.Apol. 1 7! Cξ
). The coupling of 7!() with $
« renders it a syn-
onym of ‘sing.’ Instances such as Il. 6.112 7!! ξ 1 «
$)
« suggest that remembering has a re-enacting force in epic poetry;
see Bakker (2002, 67–71).
Bakker (2002, 72–73) suggests that C … $
« means ‘But I
will remember you as well as the rest of the song’ instead of ‘another
song’ as it is commonly interpreted, and that it refers to ‘the epic story
at hand’; but at least in our hymns the ‘story at hand’ has just finished.
This interpretation also assumes that the longer Homeric Hymns were
indeed prefaces to epic recitation, which may or may not be true, and
implies that they formed a single unit together with the subsequent
(epic) song; see above. It is more likely that 7!() … $
« is
performative, “mark[ing] the timelessness of the action and the relig-
ious obligation of repeating it to honor the god”; Christensen (2010,
558–59). In other words, the poet promises to remember the god again,
i.e. reperform the hymn in the future. Viewed from this perspective, the
“passage formula” may not actually introduce another epic song that
follows immediately; rather, it may be part of the poet’s request for the
ability to sing beautifully so that he can praise the god in the future; cf.
Bundy (1972, 49–54), Race (1982, 8–10), and Calame (2011, 345,
354–57). This sentiment is also found in dedicatory epigrams; cf. IG II2
650: d , #A *) T)!« Ν)# $ | K()«,
h / ! « Ν)()) $Λ, discussed in Bremmer (1998).
The idea of rejoicing and charis has been building up throughout the
poem; cf. 127, 506, 575 and the chelys uttering / at 484. For the
establishment of charis-relation in dedications and hymns (= verbal ag-
almata), see Day (2000), Depew (2000), Scheid-Tissinier (2000,
219–30), Furley (1995), and idem (2011a).
Bibliography 587
Bibliography
Abel, E. 1886. Homeri Hymni, Epigrammata, Batrachomyomachia

(Lipsia/Prague).
Abert, H. 1899. Die Lehre vom Ethos in der griechischen Musik (Lipsia).
Abramowicz, S. 1937. Études sur les Hymnes Homériques (Wilna).
Abresch, F. L. 1832. Apparatus criticus et exegeticus in Aeschyli tragoe-
dias (Hallis Saxonum).
Adams, J. N. 1990. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Baltimore).
Adkins, A. W. H. 1963. “‘Friendship’ and ‘Self-Sufficiency’ in Homer
and Aristotle.” CQ 13: 30–45.
Adorjáni, Zs. 2011. “Der Gott der Diebe? Bemerkungen zum home-
rischen Hermes-Hymnos.” Hermes 139: 131–46.
—. (2012). “Zwei verkappte Bittreden im Homerischen Hermes-Hym-
nos.” Gymnasium (forthcoming).
Agar, T. L. 1896. “Monro’s Homer.” CR 10: 387–90.
—. 1916. “The Homeric Hymns.” CR 30: 37–39, 65–67, 177–80.
—. 1921. “The Homeric Hymns.” CR 35: 12–16, 93–97.
—. 1924. “The Homeric Hymns.” CQ 18: 137–41.
—. 1926. “The Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” CQ 20: 82–85.
Aign, B. 1963. “Die Geschichte der Musikinstrumente des ägäischen
Raumes bis um 700 vor Christus. Ein Beitrag zur Vor- und Früh-
geschichte der griechischen Musik.” (Diss. Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main).
Aitchinson, J.M. 1963. “Homeric Ν«.” Glotta 41: 271–78.
Alderton, D. 1988. Turtles and Tortoises of the World (New York/Ox-
ford).
Aleshire, S. B. 1989. The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, Their Dedi-
cations, and the Inventories (Amsterdam).
Allan, A. L. 2002. “The Lyre, the Whip, and the Staff of Gold: Read-
ings in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” (Diss. University of Exeter).
588 Bibliography
Allen, A. 1993. The Fragments of Mimnermus (Stuttgart).

Allen, F. D. 1893. “)«. Homeric Hymn III. 75.” HSCPh 4: 209.
Allen, T. W. 1895. “The Text of the Homeric Hymns II.” JHS 15:
136–83, 251–313.
—. 1897a. “The Text of the Homeric Hymns IV.” JHS 17: 45–62,
241–67.
—. 1897b. “Notes on the Homeric Hymns by J. P. D’Orville.” JPh 25:
250–60.
—. 1912. Homerus, Opera vol. V Hymnos, Cyclum, Fragmenta, Batra-
chomyomachiam, Vitas continens (Oxford).
Allen, W. S. 1983. “Some Reflections on the ‘Penultimate’ Accent.” ICS
8: 1–10.
Aloni, A. 1980. “Prooimia, hymnoi, Elio Aristide e i cugini bastardi.”
QUCC 33: 23–40.
—. 1981. Le Muse di Archiloco. Ricerche sullo stile archilocheo (Copen-
hagen).
—. 2001. “The Proem of Simonides’ Plataea Elegy and the Circum-
stances of Its Performance.” In: Boedeker and Sider, 86–105.
Amandry, P. 1939. “Convention religieuse conclue entre Delphes et
Skiathos.” BCH 63: 183–219.
—. 1950. La mantique apollinienne. Essai sur le fonctionnement de l’O-
racle (Paris).
—. 1984. “Le culte des nymphes et de Pan à l’antre Corycien.” In:
P. Amandry (ed.), L’Antre Corycien (Paris), 395–427.
Ambrosini, R. 1986. “L’uso del’articolo nel Omero minore.” SSL 26:
59–76.
Ambühl, A. 2005. Kinder und junge Helden. Innovative Aspekte des Um-
gangs mit der literarischen Tradition bei Kallimachos (Leuven).
Amigues, S. 2002. “La prairie d’asphodèle de l’Odyssée et de l’Hymne
homérique à Hermès.” RPh 76: 7–14.
Andrisano, A. 1988–89. “HMerc. 304sq.” MCr 23–24: 33–46.
Ardizzoni, A. 1967. Apollonio Rodio, Le Argonautiche, Libro I. Testo,
traduzione e commentario (Rome).
Arend, W. 1933. Die typischen Szenen bei Homer (Berlin).
Arnott, W.G. 1996. Alexis, the Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge).
Bibliography 589
Athanassakis, A. 1976. “Homeric kankanos and Its Modern Greek De-

scendants.” TAPhA 106: 1–9.
—. 1989. “From the Phallic Cairn to Shepherd God and Divine Her-
ald.” Eranos 87: 33–49.
Audollent, A. 1967 (repr.). Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotuerunt
tam in Graecis orientis quam in totius occidentis partibus praeter at-
ticas in corpore inscriptionum atticarum editas (Paris).
Austin, C. and Olson, S. D. 2004. Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae
(Oxford).
Avagianou, A. 1997. “Hermes B /)« and #E 1« at Pharsa-
lus. The Epigraphical Evidence Reconsidered.” Kernos 10: 207–13.
Bader, F. 1965. Les composées grecs du type démiourgos (Paris).
Bain, D. 2007. “Low Words in High Places: Sex, Bodily Functions, and
Body Parts in Homeric Epic and Other High Genres.” In: P. J. Fin-
glass, C. Collard, and N. J. Richardson (eds.), Hesperos. Studies
in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth
Birthday (Oxford), 40–57.
Bakker, E. J. 1988. “Long Diphthongs and Hiatus in Early Greek Epic.
Phonology and the Role of Formulaic Diction.” Mnemosyne 41:
1–26.
—. 1997. Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse (Ithaca/
London).
—. 2002. “Remembering the God’s Arrival.” Arethusa 35: 63–81.
—. 2005. Pointing at the Past. From Formula to Performance in
Homeric Poetics (Washington).
Bal, M. 1978. “Mise en abyme et iconicité.” Littérature 29: 116–28.
—. 1988. “Tricky Thematics.” In: J. Cheryl Exum and J. W. H. Bos
(eds.), Reasoning with the Foxes. Female Wit in a World of Male
Power, Semeia 42 (Atlanta), 133–55.
Balme, D. M. 2002. Aristoteles: Historia Animalium Books I–X, Text.
Prepared for Publication by A. Gotthelf (Cambridge).
Barck, C. 1976. Wort und Tat bei Homer (Hildesheim/New York).
Barmeyer, E. 1968. Die Musen. Ein Beitrag zur Inspirationstheorie (Mu-
nich).
Barnes, H. R. 1979. “Enjambement and Oral Composition.” TAPhA
109: 1–10.
590 Bibliography
Barnes, J. 1711. Homeri Odyssea, et in eandem scholia, sive interpretatio,

veterum. Accedunt Batrachomyomachia, Hymni et Epigrammata,
una cum fragmentis (Cambridge).
Bassett, S. E. 1923. “The Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey.” AJPh
44: 339–48.
—. 1926. “The So-called Emphatic Position of the Runover Word in
the Homeric Hexameter.” TAPhA 57: 116–48.
Baudy, D. 1989. “Das Keuschlamm-Wunder des Hermes (Hom. h.
Merc. 409–13): ein möglicher Schlüssel zum Verständnis kultischer
Fesselung?” GB 16: 1–28.
Baumann, H. 2007. Flora Mythologica. Griechische Pflanzenwelt in der
Antike (Zurich).
Baumeister, A. 1860. Hymni Homerici (Lipsia).
Beazley, J. D. 1948. “Hymn to Hermes.” AJA 52: 336–40.
—. 1950. “Some Inscriptions on Vases.” AJA 54: 318–19.
Becker, O. 1937. Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im
frühgriechischen Denken (Berlin).
Bekker, I. 1833. Apollonii Sophistae lexicon Homericum (Berlin).
—. 1838. Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon
Magister, Georgius Monachus (Bonn).
Belardi, W. 1949. “Nota etimologica. e !)(.” Maia 2:
247–89.
Bélis, A. 1988. “A proposito degli ‘inni delfici’ ad Apollo.” In: B. Gentili
and A. Barker (eds.), La musica in Grecia (Rome/Bari), 205–18.
—. 1995. “Cithares, citharistes et citharôdes en Grèce.” CRAI 139:
1025–65.
Benveniste, E. 1937. “Expression indo-européen de l’éternité.” BSL 38:
103–12.
—. 1948. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indoeuropéen (Paris).
—. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indoeuropéens, 2 vols. (Paris).
Bergk, T. 1856. “Miscellen B. Zur Kritik und Erklärung der Schrift-
steller. 12. Philologische Thesen.” Philologus 11: 382–85.
Bergren, A. L. T. 1982. “Sacred Apostrophe: Representation and Imi-
tation in the Homeric Hymns.” Arethusa 15: 83–108.
Bibliography 591
Bernabé, A. 1996–2007. Poetae Epici Graeci, testimonia et fragmenta

(Munich/Lipsia).
Bernardakis, G. N. (= B («, f. N.) 2004 (repr.) [< μ
E ( μ < E))7 ( λ !-
φ (#A
).
Bernhardy, G. 1822. Eratosthenica (Berlin).
Berthiaume, G. 1982. Les roles du mageiros. Étude sur le bouchère, la
cuisine et le sacrifice dans la Grèce ancienne (Leiden).
Bethe, E. 1893. Pollucis Onomasticon (Stuttgart).
Bielohlawek, K. (1924–25), (1926–27). “)! und )7. Stu-
dien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der antiken Homerischen Be-
deutungslehre.” WS 44: 1–18, 125–43, 45: 1–11.
—. 1930. “Komische Motive in der homerischen Gestaltung des grie-
chischen Göttermythus.” ARW 28: 106–24, 183–211.
Billerbeck, H. L. J. 1972 (repr.) Flora Classica (Lipsia).
Bischoff, A. 1919. “Kalender (griechischer).” RE X 2: 1568–602.
Bissinger, M. 1966. Der Adjektiv megas in der griechischen Dichtung
(München).
—. 1976. “Review of Irwin (1974).” Gnomon 48: 737–40.
Blatter, R. 1971. “Hermes der Rinderdieb.” AK 14: 128–29.
Blanc, A. 2002. “Disguised Compounds in Greek: Homeric $")(/ *«,
$*«, Ν («, ()1«, and /)φ .” TPhS 100: 169–84.
Bloch, R. H. 1983. Etymologies and Genealogies. A Literary Anthropol-
ogy of the French Middle Ages (Chicago).
Bloomfield, M. 1923. “The Art of Stealing in Hindu Fiction.” AJPh 44:
97–113.
Boegehold, A. 1999. When a Gesture was Expected. A Selection from
Archaic and Classical Greek Literature (Princeton).
Böhme, R. 1937. Das Prooimion. Eine Form sakraler Dichtung der
Griechen (Bühl Baden).
Bömer, F. 1969. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen: Kommentar (Heidel-
berg).
Boettcher, R. 1905. “De hymno in Mercurium homerico.” (Diss. Halle).
Boetzkes, R. 1921. “Kerykeion.” RE XI 1: 330–42.
592 Bibliography
Bolte J. and J. Polívka. 1963. Anmerkungen zu den Kinder- und Haus-

märchen der Brüder Grimm (Hildesheim).
Bompaire, J. 2000. Lucien écrivain: imitation et creation (Paris).
Bonanno, M. G. 1970–72. “Hymn. Merc. 503.” MCr 5–7: 60–62.
Bonaudo, R. 2004. La culla di Hermes. Iconografia e immaginario delle
hydriai ceretane (Rome).
Bonner R. J. and Smith, G. 1938. The Administration of Justice from
Homer to Aristotle, vol. 2 (Chicago).
Bonnet, M. 1898. Acta Apostolorum apocrypha, vol. 2.1 (Lipsia).
Borengässer, N. 1998. “Agnus Castus – ein Kraut für alle Fälle.” In:
E. Dassmann (ed.), Chartulae. Festschrift für Wolfgang Speyer
(Münster), 5–13.
Borgeaud, W. 1944. “Homer, f7/«.” ZVS 68: 221–22.
Bornmann, F. 1968. Callimachi hymnus in Dianam. Introduzione, testo
critico e commento (Florence).
Borthwick, E. K. 1959. “ )(5« – A Neglected Technical Term in
Greek Music.” CQ 9: 23–29.
—. 1970. “The Riddle of the Tortoise and the Lyre.” Music and Letters
51: 373–87.
Bosworth, D. A. 2003. “The Mise-en-Abyme and Biblical Hebrew Nar-
rative: The Cases of Genesis 38, 1, 1 Samuel 25, and 1 Kings 13”
(Diss. Catholic University of America).
Bothe, F. M. 1835. Homeri Carmina V (Lipsia).
Bounas, T. 2008. “‘Weder den Honig noch die Biene begehr’ ich.’ Die
Biene in der griechischen Dichtung von der archaischen Zeit bis
zum Ende des Hellenismus.” In: D. Engels and C. Nicolaye (eds.),
Ille operum custos: Kulturgeschichtliche Beiträge zur antiken Bie-
nensymbolik und ihrer Rezeption (Hildesheim/Zurich/New York),
60–81.
Bowden, H. 2005. Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle. Divination
and Democracy (Cambridge).
Bowie, A. M. 1993. Aristophanes. Myth, Ritual and Comedy (Cam-
bridge).
Bowra, C. M. 1934. “Homeric Words in Cyprus.” JHS 54: 54–74.
Boyer, C. B. 1959. The Rainbow: from Myth to Mathematics (London/
New York).
Bibliography 593
Branham, R. B. 1989. Unruly Eloquence. Lucian and the Comedy of

Traditions (Cambridge, Mass.).
Braswell, B. K. 1979. “&7«: A Lexicographical Note on Pindar.”
Glotta 79: 182–90.
Bremer, D. 1974. “Licht als universales Darstellungsmedium.” ABG
18: 185–206.
—. 1975. “Die Epiphanie des Gottes in den homerischen Hymnen und
Platons Gottesbegriff.” ZRGG 27: 1–21.
Bremmer, J. M. 1981. “Greek Hymns.” In: H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith,
Hope, and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient
World (Leiden), 193–215.
—. 1998. “The Reciprocity of Giving and Thanksgiving in Greek Wor-
ship.” In: C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, R. Seaford (eds.), Reciprocity in
Ancient Greece (Oxford), 127–36.
Breuning, P. 1929. De hymnorum homericorum memoria (Utrecht).
Briand, M. 1997. “Sur b 7 (« (Iliade E, 49). Ab “habile” et
“saglant”, ¹1)« “rusé”, s “sang versé”, ie. *seh1- “semer,
verser” et *seh2- “lier”.” Métis 12: 129–60.
Brillante, C. 2001. “L’invenzione della lira nell’inno omerico a
Hermes.” SCO 47: 95–128.
Brioso, M. 1990. “Himno homérico a Hermes 567ss.: una supuesta la-
guna.” Habis 21: 9–14.
Brout, N. 2003. “La mauve ou l’asphodèle ou Comment manger pour
s’élever au-dessus de la condition humaine.” DHA 29: 97–108.
Brown, N. O. 1947. Hermes the Thief (Madison).
Bruchmann, C. F. H. 1893. Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Graecos
leguntur (Lipsia).
Bruit, L. 1999. “The Meal at the Hyacinthia: Ritual Consumption and
Offering.” In: O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the
Symposion (Oxford), 162–76.
Brunius-Nilsson, E. (1955). Daimonie. An Inquiry into a Mode of Apos-
trophe in Old Greek Literature (Uppsala).
Bruns, G. 1970. Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten. Archaeologia Homerica,
Bd. 2 Kap. Q (Göttingen).
Buffière, F. 1956. Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris).
594 Bibliography
Bulloch, A. W. 1985. Callimachus: the Fifth Hymn. Edited with Intro-

duction and Commentary (Cambridge).
Bundy, E. L. 1972. “The ‘Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apol-
lonios’ Part I: The Epilogue of Kallimachos’s Hymn to Apollo.”
CSCA 5: 39–94.
Bungard, C. 2011. “Lies, Lyres, and Laughter: Surplus Potential in the
Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” Arethusa 44: 143–65.
Burckhardt, Th. 1868. “Zum Verständnis des Homerhymnus auf
Hermes.” JbClPh 97: 737–49.
Burkert, W. 1977. Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen
Epoche (Stuttgart/Berlin).
—. 1984. “Sacrificio-sacrilegio: il ‘trickster’ fondatore.” StudStor 4:
835–45.
—. 21997. Homo necans (Berlin).
Burford, A. 1993. Land and Labor in the Greek World (Baltimore/Lon-
don).
Buttmann, P. 1865. Lexilogus, 2 vols. (Berlin).
Buxton, R. 1994. Imaginary Greece. The Contexts of Mythology (Cam-
bridge).
Caggìa, G. 1972. “Due parole omeriche in Apollonio Rodio ('5
in 1, 459 e $()« in 3, 1132).” RFIC 100: 23–31.
Cairns, D. L. 1993. Aidos: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and
Shame in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford).
Cairns, F. 1972. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edin-
burgh).
—. 1983a. “Alcaeus’ Hymn to Hermes, P.Oxy. 2734 fr. 1, and Horace
Odes 1,10.” QUCC 42: 29–35.
—. 1983b. “A Herm from Histiaia with an Agonistic Epigram of the
Fifth Century B.C.” Phoenix 37: 16–37.
Caizzi, F. D. 1966. Antisthenis Fragmenta (Milan).
Calame, C. 1995. The Craft of Poetic Speech in Ancient Greece, Trans-
lated by Janice Orion (Ithaca).
—. 2005. Masks of Authority. Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek
Poetics, translated by Peter M. Burk (Ithaca/London).
Bibliography 595
Calame, C. 2011. “The Homeric Hymns as Poetic Offerings. Musical

and Ritual Relationships with the Gods.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.),
The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays (Oxford), 334–57.
Callaway, C. 1990. “The Oath in Epic Poetry” (Diss. University of
Washington).
—. 1993. “Perjury and the Unsworn Oath.” TAPhA 123: 15–25.
Campbell, D. A. 1998. Greek Lyric vol. 2, Anacreon, Anacreontea,
Choral Lyric from Olympus to Alcman (Cambridge, Mass.).
Campbell, M. 1981. Echoes and Imitations of Early Epic in Apollonius
Rhodius (Leiden).
—. 1983. Studies in the Third Book of Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica
(Hildesheim).
—. 1991. Moschus, Europa, Edited with Introduction and Commentary
(Hildesheim).
—. 1994. A Commentary on Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica III 1–471
(Leiden).
Cantarella, E. 2001. “Modelli giurisdizionali omerici: il giudice unico,
la giustizia dei vecchi.” In: E. Cantarella and G. Thür (eds.), Sym-
posion 1997. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechts-
geschichte (Altafiumara, 8.–14. September 1997) (Cologne/Wei-
mar/Vienna), 3–19.
Cantilena, M. 1982. Ricerche sulla dizione epica vol. I: Per uno studio
della formularità degli inni omerici (Rome).
—. 1993. “Il primo suono della lira.” In: R. Pretagostini (ed.), Tradi-
zione e innovazione della cultura classica da Omero all’età elleni-
stica. Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili (Rome), 115–27.
Capponi, M. 2003. “Fins d’hymnes et sphragis énonciatives.” QUCC
75: 9–35.
Carey, C. 2007. Lysiae orationes cum fragmentis (Oxford).
Caroli, M. 1999. “Eufemismi greci di superstizione.” In: F. de Martino
and A. H. Sommerstein (eds.), Studi sull’eufemismo (Bari), 39–69.
Carpenter, R. 1950. “Argeiphontes.” AJA 54: 177–83.
Casevitz M. and F. Skoda. 1985. “De bric et de broc: bric-a-brac éty-
mologique. (Recherches sur des radicaux onomatopéiques en grec
ancien).” ZA 35: 29–56.
596 Bibliography
Cassio, A. C. 2009. “The Language of Hesiod and the Corpus Hesio-

deum.” In: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.),
Brill’s Companion to Hesiod (Leiden/Boston), 179–201.
Càssola, F. 31986. Inni omerici (Milano).
Castellani, V. 1980. “Two Divine Scandals: Ovid, Met. 2.680ff. and
4.171ff and his Sources.” TAPhA 110: 37–50.
Caswell, C. P. 1990. A Study of Thumos in Early Greek Epic (Leiden/
New York/Cologne).
Chadwick, J. 1996. Lexicographica Graeca. Contributions to the Lexi-
cography of Ancient Greek. (Oxford).
Chantraine, P. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris).
Chantry, M. 1994. Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum (Groningen).
Cheyns, A. 1983. “Le *« et la conception de l’homme dans l’ épopée
homérique.” RBPh 61: 20–86.
Chittenden, J. 1947. “The Master of Animals.” Hesperia 16: 89–114.
—. 1948. “Diaktoros Argeiphontes.” AJA 52: 24–33.
Christensen, J. P. 2010. “First-Person Futures in Homer.” AJPh 131:
543–71.
Christopoulos, M. (= X !*)«, M.) 1985. O *(« (« -
! 7« !( ( 7 /= 7 (!(. H !) -
φ (A7).
—. 2007. “Contests without Rewards. Musical Contests in the Odys-
sey and the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” In: M. PU&( – A!-
)1), A. } «, X. T!)(« (eds.), Ψ

. A #

O
(15–19 2004) (I (), 145–54.

Cicu, L. 2005. “Cicerone e il prepon.” Paideia 55: 123–62.
Clark, M. 1997. Out of Line: Homeric Composition beyond the Hexa-
meter (Lanham).
—. 2001. “Was Telemachus Rude to His Mother? Odyssey 1.356–59.”
CPh 96: 335–54.
Clarke, M. 1997. “Gods and Mountains in Greek Myth and Poetry.”
In: A. B. Loyd (ed.), What Is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek
Divinity (London), 65–80.
—. 2001. “‘Heart-cutting Talk’: Homeric and Related
Words.” CQ 51: 329–38.
Bibliography 597
Clauss, J. J. 1986. “Lies and Allusions: The Addressee and Date of Cal-
limachus’ ‘Hymn to Zeus’.” ClAnt 5: 155–70.
—. 1993. The Best of the Argonauts. The Redefinition of the Epic Hero
in Book 1 of Apollonius’ Argonautica (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Ox-
ford).
Clay, D. 2004. Archilochos Heros. The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis
(Washington, DC).
Clay, J. S. 1983. The Wrath of Athena. Gods and Men in the Odyssey
(Princeton).
—. 1999. “Il. 24.269 and the Semantics of .” CQ 49: 618–21.
—. 2003. Hesiod’s Cosmos. (Cambridge).
—. 2006. “Hesiod’s Rhetorical Art.” In: I. Worthington (ed.), A Com-
panion to Greek Rhetoric (London), 447–57.
—. 2011. “The Homeric Hymns as Genre.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.), The
Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays (Oxford), 233–53.
Cleland, L. 2005. The Brauron Clothing Catalogues. Text, Analysis,
Glossary and Translation (Oxford).
Cobet, G. 1862.“Ad hymnos homericos.” Mnemosyne 11: 291–312.
Collins, D. 1999. “Hesiod and the Divine Voice of the Muses.” Arethusa
32: 241–62.
—. 2004. Master of the Game: Competition and Performance in Greek
Poetry (Washington, D.C.).
Comotti, G. 1989. “L’anabole e il ditirambo.” QUCC 60: 107–17.
Compton, T. M. 2006. Victim of the Muses: Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior,
and Hero in Greco-Roman and Indo-European Myth and History
(Cambridge Mass.).
Constantinides, M. 1894. “The Athos MS. of the Homeric Hymns.” CR
8: 341–44.
Cook, A. 1895. “The Bee in Greek Mythology.” JHS 15: 1–24.
Costa, G. 1982. “Hermes, dio delle iniziazioni.” CCC 3: 277–95.
Cougny, E. 1890. Epigrammatum anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et
appendice nova, vol. 3 (Paris).
Courtney, E. 1980. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London).
—. 1995. Musa Lapidaria: A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions (At-
lanta).
598 Bibliography
Courtney, E. 2003. The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford).

—. 2008. “The Old Man of Onchestos.” Prometheus 34: 113–14.
Cramer, J. A. 1835–37. Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothe-
carum Oxoniensium (Oxford).
Croci, G. 1977–78. “Mito e poetica nell’inno a Ermes.” BIFG 4: 175–84.
Croon, J. H. 1952. The Herdsman of the Dead. Studies on Some Cults,
Myths, and Legends of the Ancient Greek Colonization-Area (Ut-
recht).
Cusset, C. 1997. “‘Entre le vol et le festin’ à propos de la correction du
vers 136 de l’ Hymne homérique à Hermès.” RPh 71: 39–43.
Dällenbach, L. 1989. The Mirror in the Text, Translated by J. Whiteley
with E. Hughes (Cambridge).
D’Alessio, G. B. 2005. “Ordered from the Catalogue: Pindar, Bacchy-
lides, and Hesiodic Genealogical Poetry.” In: R. Hunter (ed.), The
Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions
(Cambridge), 217–38.
Dalby, A. 2003. Food in the Ancient World from A to Z (London/New
York).
Dale, A. M. 1961. Euripides, Alcestis. Edited with Introduction and
Commentary (Oxford).
Danielewicz, J. 1974. “Hymni homerici minores quanam arte con-
scripti sint.” SPhP 1: 7–17.
D’Anna, G. 1992. Anonimo, Origo gentis Romanae (Milan).
D’Arcy Thompson 1895. A Glossary of Greek Birds (Oxford).
Davies, M. 1988. “Stesichorus’ Geryoneis and Its Folk-Tale Origins.”
CQ 38: 277–90.
—. 2004. “Some Neglected Aspects of Cacus.” Eranos 102: 30–37.
—. 2006. “Unhelpful Helpers: Folk-Tale Vestiges in the Homeric
Hymns.” Prometheus 32: 193–207.
Day, J. W. 2000. “Epigram and Reader: Generic Force as (Re-)Acti-
vation of Ritual.” In: M. Depew and D. Obbink (eds.), Matrices
of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, Mass.),
37–57.
Debrunner, A. 1907. “Zu den konsonantischen -io Präsentien im Grie-
chischen.” IF 21: 13–98, 201–76.
Bibliography 599
Debrunner, A. 1909. “Adjektive auf -)«.” IF 23: 1–45.

—. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Heidelberg).
Defradas, J. 1954. Les thèmes de la propagande delphique (Paris).
—. 1955. “Epithètes homériques à valeur religieuse.” RPh 29: 206–12.
Degani, E. 2001 (repr.). A@ (Bologna).
—. 2004. “Filosseno di Leucade e Platone comico (fr. 189 K.-A.).” In:
Albiani, M. G. et al. (ed.), Filologia e storia. Scritti di Enzo Degani
vol. 1 (Hildesheim), 564–82 [originally published in Eikasmos 9
(1998) 81–99].
—. 2002. Studi su Ipponatte (Hildesheim).
—. 2007. Ipponatte, Frammenti (Bologna).
De Jong, I. J. F. and Nünlist, R. 2007. Time in Ancient Greek Literature
(Leiden).
De Lannoy, L. 1977. Flavius Philostratus, Heroicus (Lipsia).
De Martino, F. 1980. “Ν))( $7 (in coda all’inno omerico ad Apollo,
545–546).” AC 49: 232–40.
Deonna, W. 1939. “EC. Croyances antiques et modernes: l’odeur
suave des dieux et des élus.” Genava 17: 167–263.
Depew, M. 2000. “Enacted and Represented Dedications: Genre and
Greek Hymn.” In: M. Depew and D. Obbink (eds.), Matrices of
Genre. Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, Mass.), 59–79.
Detienne, M. 1973. Les maîtres de verité dans la Grèce archaïque (Paris).
Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P. 1978. Cunning Intelligence in Greek
Culture and Society, Translated from the French by J. Lloyd (Sus-
sex).
Dettori, E. 1994. “Un’ipotesi su .” Aion (Ling) 16: 117–69.
De Valasco, F. D. 1988. “Un aspecto del simbolismo del kerykeion di
Hermes.” Gerión 6: 39–53.
De Velsen, A. 1965 (repr.) Trypho Grammaticus (Amsterdam).
De Waele, F. J. M. 1927. The Magic Staff or Rod in Graeco-Roman An-
tiquity (Ghent).
Dickey, E. 1996. Greek Forms of Address. From Herodotus to Lucian
(Oxford).
Diehl, E. 1940. “ … fuerunt ante Homerum poetae.” RhM 89: 81–114.
Diels, H. 1965 (repr.) Antike Technik. Sieben Vorträge (Osnabrück).
600 Bibliography
Diggle, J. 1970. Euripides Phaethon. Edited with Prolegomena and Com-

mentary (Cambridge).
—. 1996. “Sophocles, ‘Ichneutae’ (fr. 314 Radt).” ZPE 112: 3–17.
—. 1998. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Selecta. (Oxford).
—. 2004. Theophrastus, Characters. Edited with Introduction, Trans-
lation, and Commentary (Cambridge).
Dihle, A. 1970. “Leumanns Homerische Wörter und die Sprache der
mündlichen Dichtung.” Glotta 48: 1–7.
Diller, H. 1971. “Der vorphilosophische Gebrauch von *!« und
!.” In: H.-J. Newiger and H. Seyffert (eds.), Hans Diller,
Kleine Schriften zur antiken Literatur (Munich).
Dillery, J. 2005. “Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners
and the Problem of Authority.” In: S. I. Johnston and P. T. Struck
(eds.), Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination (Leiden/Boston),
167–231.
Dillon, M. P. J. 1996. “Oionomanteia in Greek Divination.” In: M. P. J.
Dillon (ed.), Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Ap-
proaches (Amsterdam), 99–121.
Dindorf, L. 1868. Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum, vol. 1 (Lipsia).
Dindorf, W. 1855. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam, 2 vols. (Oxford).
Dobrov, G. W. 2001. Figures of Play. Greek Drama and Metafictional
Poetics (Oxford).
Dobson, M. 1979. “Herodotus 1.47.1 and the Hymn to Hermes; a Sol-
ution to the Test Oracle.” AJPh 100: 349–59.
Dolcetti, P. 2004. Ferecide di Atene. Testimonianze e frammenti (Ales-
sandria).
Dornseiff, F. 1938. “Zum homerischen Hermeshymnos.” RhM 87:
80–84.
Douglas, M. 2007. Thinking in Cicles. An Essay on Ring Composition
(New Haven/London).
Dover, K. J. 1993. Aristophanes, Frogs (Oxford).
Drachmann A. B. 1903–27. Scholia vetera in Pindari Carmina, 3 vols.
(Lipsia).
Dubois, L. 1988. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, 3 vols. (Louvain-
Neuve).
Bibliography 601
Due, O. S. 1965. “The Meaning of the Homeric Formula / !(-

) « )7.” C&M 26: 1–9.
Dürbeck, H. 1977. Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeich-
nungen (Bonn).
Dumoulin, D. 1992. “Die Chelys: ein altgriechisches Saiteninstru-
ment.” AMW 49: 85–109, 225–57.
—. 1994. Antike Schildkröten (Würzburg).
Dunbar, N. 1994. Aristophanes Birds. Edited with Introduction and
Durand, J.-L. 1986. Sacrifice et labour en Grèce ancienne. Essai d’an-
thropologie religieuse (Paris/Rome).
Durante, M. 1974. “Greco « ant. ind. sam · sa.” In: W. Belardi (ed.),
Studi linguistici in onore di Tristano Bolelli (Pisa), 119–35.
Edmonds, J. M. 1937. “Some Notes on the Homeric Hymns.” CQ 31:
49–52.
Edmunds, S. T. 1990. Homeric Nepios. (New York/London).
Edwards, G. P. 1971. The Language of Hesiod in Its Traditional Context
(Oxford).
Edwards, M. 1966. “Some Features of Homeric Craftsmanship.”
TAPhA 97: 115–79.
—. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 5 Books 17–20 (Cambridge).
Edwards, M. J. 1993. “Porphyry and the ‘Cattle-Stealing God’.”
Hermes 121: 122–25.
Egan, R. B. 2006. “$")7, $")) etc.: Technical Terms in
Music and Poetics.” Glotta 82: 55–69.
Egenolff, P. 1902. “Zu Lentz’ Herodian II.” Philologus 61: 77–132.
Eitrem, S. 1906. “Der homerische Hymnus an Hermes.” Philologus 65:
248–82.
—. 1909a. “De Mercurio Aristophaneo.” Philologus 68: 344–67.
—. 1909b. “Hermes )1«.” RhM 64: 333–35.
—. 1912a. “Hermaion.” RE VIII 1: 709–10.
—. 1912b. “Hermes.” RE VIII 1: 738–92.
Ekroth, G. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Ar-
chaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods (Liège).
602 Bibliography
Ekroth, G. 2005. “Blood on the Altars? On the Treatment of Blood at

Greek Sacrifices and the Iconographical Evidence.” AK 48: 9–29.
Elderkin, G. W. 1941. “The Natural and the Artificial Grotto.” Hes-
peria 10: 125–37.
Elliger, W. 1975. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen
Dichtung (Berlin/New York).
Ernesti, J. Ch. G. 1962 (repr.) Lexicon technologiae Graecorum rhet-
oricae (Hildesheim).
Escher, J. 1905. “Eos.” RE V 2: 2657–69.
Evelyn-White, H. 1914a. “Some Notes on the Homeric Hymns.” CR 28:
221–23.
—. 1914b. Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homerica with an English
Translation (Cambridge, Mass./London).
Faklaris, P. (= d ) («, P.) 1977. “Chelys.” AD 32: 218–33.
Fantham, E. 1998. Ovid, Fasti Book IV (Cambridge).
Faraone, C. 1991a. “Binding and Burying the Forces of Evil: The
Defensive Use of ‘Voodoo Dolls’ in Ancient Greece.” ClAnt 10:
165–220.
—. 1991b. “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells.” In:
C. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek
Magic and Religion (New York/Oxford), 3–32.
Faulkner, A. 2008. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Introduction, Text,
and Commentary (Oxford).
—. 2011. “The Collection of Homeric Hymns from the Seventh to the
Third Centuries BC.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns:
Interpretative Essays (Oxford), 175–205.
Faust, M. 1970. “Die künstlerische Verwendung von 1 ‘Hund’ in
den homerischen Epen.” Glotta 48: 8–31.
Fayant, M.-Chr. 1998. “Hermès dans les Dionysiaques de Nonnos de
Panopolis.” REG 111: 145–59.
Fehling, D. 1969. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den
Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin).
Fernández-Delgado, J. A. 1990. “Orakel-Parodie, mündliche Dichtung
und Literatur im homerischen Hermes-Hymnus.” In: W. Kullmann
and M. Reichel (eds.), Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Li-
teratur bei den Griechen (Tübingen), 119–225.
Bibliography 603
Fernández-Delgado, J. A. 1998. “Las proteicas vacas del Himno a

Hermes: Dicción formular y parodia.” Emerita 66: 1–14.
Festugière, A. J. 1949. “Le sens philosophique du mot @. A propos
d’Aristote, De caelo I, 9.” PP 11: 172–89.
Feyel, M. 1946. “Smenai. Étude sur le v. 552 de l’Hymne homérique à
Hermès.” Rev.Arch. 25: 5–22.
Fick, A. 1896. “Zum homerischen Hymnus B auf Hermes.” BB 22:
269–73.
Fietkau, H. 1863. De carminum hesiodeorum atque hymnorum quattuor
magnorum vocabulis non homericis (Königsberg).
Fine, J. V. A. 1951. Horoi. Studies in Mortgage, Real Security, and Land
Tenure in Ancient Athens (Baltimore).
Finkelberg, M. 1985–88. “Enchantment and Other Effects of Poetry in
the Homeric Odyssey.” SCI 8–9: 1–10.
—. 1998. The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece (Oxford).
Finnegan, R. 1977. Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance, and Social
Context (Cambridge).
Fitton, J. W. 1973. “Greek Dance.” CQ 23: 254–74.
Fletcher, J. 2008. “A Trickster’s Oath in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.”
AJPh 129: 29–46.
Foley, J. M. 1997. “Oral Tradition and Homeric Art: The Hymn to De-
meter.” In: S. Langdon (ed.), New Light on a Dark Age (Columbia/
London), 144–53.
Fontenrose, J. E. 1945. “Philemon, Lot, and Lycaon.” California
Studies in Classical Philology 13: 93–120.
—. 1949. “Review of Brown (1947).” CPh 44: 203–206.
—. 1959. Python. A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins (Berkeley/
Los Angeles).
—. 1978. The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations, with a
Catalogue of Responses (Berkeley).
Forbes Irving, P. M. C. 1990. Metamorphosis in Greek Myths (Oxford).
Ford, A. L. 1988. “The Classical Definition of W5) .” CPh 83:
300–307.
—. 1992. Homer: the Poetry of the Past (Ithaca).
—. 1999. “Performing Interpretation: Early Allegorical Exegesis of
604 Bibliography
Homer.” In: M. Beissinger, J. Tylus, and S. Wofford (eds.), Epic

Traditions in the Contemporary World: the Poetics of Community
(Berkeley), 33–53.
Ford, A. L. 2002. The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic
Theory in Classical Greece. (Princeton).
—. 2010. “Plato’s Two Hesiods.” In: G. R. Boys-Stones and J. Hau-
bold (eds.), Plato and Hesiod (Oxford), 133–54.
Forderer, M. 1958. “Review of Zumbach (1955).” Gnomon 30: 94–101.
Forssmann, B. 1964. “ ’ 1! hy. Merc. 152.” ZVS 79: 28–31.
—. 1978. “Homerisch / und Verwandtes.” Die Sprache 24:
3–24.
Forster, E. 1936. “Trees and Plants in Homer.” CR 50: 97–104.
Fowler, D. 2000. “Epic in the Middle of the Wood: Mise en abyme in
the Nisus and Euryalus Episode.” In: A. R. Sharrock and H. Mo-
rales (eds.), Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations
(Oxford), 89–114.
Fowler, R. 1988–89. “Genealogical Thinking, Hesiod’s Catalogue, and
the Creation of the Hellenes.” PCPhS 44: 1–19.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1910–12. Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis
auf -«, -, - (Strassburg).
Fraenkel, Eduard. 1950. Aeschylus, Agamemnon (Oxford).
—. 1957. Horace (Oxford).
Franke, F. 1828. Homeri Hymni, Epigrammata, fragmenta et Batracho-
myomachia ad optimarum editionum fidem recensuit et notis instru-
xit F.F. (Lipsia).
Franklin, J. C. 2002. “Diatonic Music in Greece: A Reassessment of Its
Antiquity.” Mnemosyne 55: 669–702.
—. 2003. “The Language of Musical Technique in Greek Epic Dic-
tion.” Gaia 7: 295–307.
Frazer, J. G. 1921. Apollodorus: The Library, 2 vols. (London/New
York).
—. 1930. Myths of the Origin of Fire (London).
—. 1965. Pausanias’s Description of Greece. Translated with a Com-
mentary, vol. 4 (New York).
Bibliography 605
Friedländer, P. 1966. “Das Proömium von Hesiods Theogonie.” In:

E. Heitsch (ed.), Hesiod (Darmstadt), 277–94 [originally published
in Hermes 49 (1914) 1–16].
Friedrich, R. 2000. “Homeric Enjambement and Orality.” Hermes 128:
1–19.
—. 2007. Formular Economy in Homer. The Poetics of the Breaches
(Stuttgart).
Fries, C. 1938. “Zum homerischen Hermeshymnus.” PhW 58: 879–80.
Fröhder, D. 1994. Die dichterische Form der homerischen Hymnen un-
tersucht am Typus der mittelgroßen Preislieder (Hidelsheim).
Frost, F. 1999. “Sausage and Meat Preservation in Antiquity.” GRBS
40: 241–52.
Führer, R. 1978. “Review of Càssola (11975).” Gnomon 50: 705–10.
—. 2004. “h. Merc. 325.” Glotta 80: 23.
Furley, W. D. 1981. Studies in the Use of Fire in Ancient Greek Religion
(Salem).
—. 1993. “Types of Greek Hymns.” Eos 81: 21–41.
—. 1995. “Praise and Persuasion in Greek Hymns.” JHS 115: 29–46.
—. 1996. Andokides and the Herms. A Study of Crisis in Fifth-Century
Athenian Religion (London).
—. 2011a. “Life in a Line: a Reading of Dedicatory Epigrams from the
Archaic and Classical Period.” In: M. Baumbach, A. Petrovic, and
I. Petrovic (eds.), Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram (Cam-
bridge), 151–66.
—. 2011b. “Homeric and Un-Homeric Hexameter Hymns. A Ques-
tion of Type.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Inter-
pretative Essays (Oxford), 206–31.
Furley, W. D. and J. M. Bremmer. 2001. Greek Hymns. Selected Cult
Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. (Tübingen).
Gagarin, M. 1994. “Probability and Persuasion: Plato and Early Greek
Rhetoric.” In: I. Worthington (ed.), Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in
Action (London/New York), 46–68.
—. 2007. “Litigants’ Oaths in Athenian Law.” In: A. H. Sommerstein
and J. Fletcher (eds.), Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society (Bristol),
39–47.
606 Bibliography
Gaisford, Th. 1823. Scholia in Hesiodum (Lipsia).

—. 1848. Etymologicon Magnum, seu verius lexicon saepissime vocabu-
lorum origines indagans ex pluribus lexicis scholiastis et grammaticis
anonymi cuiusdam concinnatum (Oxford).
Ganschinietz, R. 1918a. “Aleuromanteia.” RE Suppl. III: 78–79.
—. 1918b. “Alphitomanteia.” RE Suppl. III: 86.
Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth. A Guide to Literary and Artistic
Sources (Baltimore).
García, J. F. 2002. “Symbolic Action in the Homeric Hymns: the Theme
of Recognition.” ClAnt 21: 5–39.
Garvie, A. F. 1994. Homer, Odyssey Books VI–VIII (Cambridge).
Gaunt, D. M. 1977. “The Creation-Theme in Epic Poetry.” CompLit
29: 213–20.
Gauthier, Ph. 1972. Symbola: les étrangers et la justice dans les cités
grecques (Nancy).
Gauthier, Ph. and Hatzopoulos, M. B. 1993. La loi gymnasiarchique de
Beroia (Athens).
Gazzano, F. 2005. “Senza frode e senza inganno: formule ‘precau-
zionali’ e rapporti interstatali nel mondo greco.” In: L. Santi A-
mantini (ed.), Dalle parole ai fatti. Relazioni interstatali e comuni-
cazione politica nel mondo antico (Roma), 1–33.
Gelzer, T. 1994. “Zum Codex Mosquensis und zur Sammlung der
Homerischen Hymnen.” Hyperboreus 1: 113–36.
Gemoll, A. 1886. Die homerischen Hymnen (Lipsia).
Georgoudi, S. 1996. “Les Douze Dieux des Grecs: variations sur un
thème.” In: S. Georgoudi and J.-P. Vernant (eds.), Mythes grecs au
figuré de l’antiquité au baroque (Paris), 43–80.
—. 1998. “Les Douze Dieux et les autres dans l’espace cultuel grec.”
Kernos 11: 73–83.
Gera, D. L. 2003. Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civili-
zation (Oxford).
Gérard-Rousseau, M. 1968. Les mentions religieuses dans les tablettes
myceniennes (Rome).
Gering, H. 1927. Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda (Halle).
Bibliography 607
Germany, R. 2005. “The Figure of Echo in the Homeric Hymn to Pan.”

AJPh 126: 187–208.
Geus, K. 2002. Eratosthenes von Kyrene: Studien zur hellenistischen
Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Munich).
Giangiulio, M. 1992. “La φ)*(« tra Sibariti e Serdaioi (Meiggs-
Lewis, 10).” ZPE 93: 31–44.
Giannakis, G. 2000. “On Greek Ν .” ZPE 76: 192–98.
Gigliotti, M. 1991. “Nota grammaticale a H.Merc. 239.” GFRF 1:
59–63.
Gill, D. 1991. Greek Cult Tables (New York/London).
Giuman, M. 2008. Melissa. Archeologia delle api e del miele nella Grecia
antica (Rome).
Glei, R. 1984. Die Batrachomyomachie: synoptische Edition und Kom-
mentar (Frankfurt am Main).
Goebel, A. 1967 (repr.) Lexilogus zu Homer und den Homeriden (Am-
sterdam).
Görgemanns, H. 1976. “Rhetorik und Poetik im homerischen Hermes-
hymnus.” In: H. Görgemanns and E. A. Schmidt (eds.), Studien
zum antiken Epos Franz Dirlmeier und Viktor Pöschl gewidmet
(Meisenheim), 113–28.
Golden, M. 1995. “Baby Talk and Child Language in Ancient Greece.”
In: F. De Martino and A. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle
voci, vol. 2 (Bari), 11–34.
—. 2003. “Childhood in Ancient Greece.” In: J. Neils and J. H. Oakley
(eds.), Coming of Age in Ancient Greece. Images of Childhood from
the Classical Past (New Haven/London), 13–29.
Goldhill, S. 1991. The Poet’s Voice. Essays on Poetics and Greek Litera-
ture (Cambridge).
Gomme, A. W. and F. H. Sandbach. 1973. Menander, A Commentary
(Oxford).
Goodwin, A. 1893. Hymni Homerici, codicibus denuo collatis recensuit
A.G. (Oxford).
Gostoli, A. 1990. Terpander (Roma).
Gottesman, A. 2008. “The Pragmatics of Homeric kertomia.” CQ 58:
1–12.
Gould, J. 1973. “Hiketeia.” JHS 93: 74–103.
608 Bibliography
Gow, A. S. F. 1950. Theocritus. Introduction, Text, and Translation

(Cambridge).
—. 1952. Bucolici Graeci (Oxford).
Gow, A. S. F. and A. F. Schofield. 1953. Nicander. The Poems and Poeti-
cal Fragments (Cambridge).
Graefe G. 1963. “Der homerische Hymnus auf Hermes.” Gymnasium
70: 515–26.
Graf, F. 1992. “The Gestures of the Roman Actors and Orators.” In:
J. Bremmer and H. Rodenburg (eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture
(Ithaca), 36–58.
—. 2003. “Initiation: a Concept with a Troubled History.” In:
D. B. Dodd and C. A. Faraone (eds.), Initiation in Ancient Greek
Rituals and Narratives. New Critical Perspectives (London/New
York), 3–24.
Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. 2003. “Homeric Masculinity: ( and
$( (.” JHS 123: 60–76.
Green, S. J. 2004. Ovid, Fasti 1: A Commentary (Leiden/Boston).
Greene, E. 2005. “Revising Illegitimacy: The Use of Epithets in the
Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” CQ 55: 343–49.
Greve, G. 1867. De Hymno in Mercurium Homerico (Monasterii).
Griffith, M. 1999. Sophocles, Antigone (Cambridge).
Groddeck, G. E. 1786. De hymnorum homericorum reliquiis (Göttingen).
Grottanelli, C. 2001. “La cléromancie ancienne et le dieu Hermès.” In:
F. Cordano and C. Grottanelli (eds.), Sorteggio pubblico e clero-
manzia dall’antichità all’età moderna (Milan), 155–96.
Gundel, W. 1928. “Maia.” RE XIV 1: 527–30.
Haas, G. 1985. Die Syrinx in der griechischen Bildkunst (Vienna/Co-
logne/Graz).
Hägg, T. 1989. “Hermes and the Invention of the Lyre. An Unorthodox
Version.” SO 64: 36–73.
Hägg, T. and B. Utas. 2003. The Virgin and Her Lover. Fragments of an
Ancient Greek Novel and a Persian Epic Poem (Leiden/Boston).
Haft, A. 1996. “The Mercurial Significance of Raiding”: Baby Hermes
and Animal Theft in Contemporary Crete.” Arion 4: 27–48.
Bibliography 609
Hagel, S. 2010. Ancient Greek Music: A Technical History (Cam-

bridge).
Hainsworth, J. B. 1981. “Criteri di oralità nella poesia arcaica non
omerica.” In: C. Brillante, M. Cantilena and C. O. Pavese (eds.),
I poemi epici rapsodici non omerici. Atti del convegno di Venezia,
28–30 settembre 1977 (Padua), 3–19.
Halliwell, S. 1991. “The Uses of Laughter in Greek Culture.” CQ 41:
279–96.
—. 2008. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer
to Early Christianity (Cambridge).
Hamilton, R. 1974. General Form in the Odes of Pindar (The Hague/
Paris).
Hansen, O. 1984. “Apollo/Artemis at Histiaia/Oreos.” ZPE 54: 132.
Harrell, S. E. 1991. “Apollo’s Fraternal Threats: Language of Succes-
sion and Domination in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” GRBS 32:
307–29.
Harrison, J. E. 1903. “Mystica Vannus Iacchi.” JHS 23: 292–324.
Haslam, M. 1997. “Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text.”
In: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer
(Leiden/New York/Cologne), 55–100.
Haß, P. 1998. Der locus amoenus in der antiken Literatur: zur Theorie
und Geschichte eines literarischen Motivs (Bamberg).
Headlam, W. 1908. “Emendations.” JPh 31: 1–13.
Heiden, B. 2010. “Truth and Personal Agreement in Archaic Greek
Poetry: The Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” Philosophy and Literature
34: 409–24.
Henderson, J. 21991. The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic
Comedy (New Haven).
Hendry, M. 1991. “A Hermetic Pun in Marcus Argentarius XII GP
(A. P. 5.127).” Hermes 119: 497.
Henrich, E. 1899. “Die sogenannte polare Ausdrucksweise im Griechi-
schen.” Programm des K. humanist. Gymnasiums Neustadt a.d.H.
für das Schuljahr 1898/99 (Neustadt).
Herington, J. 1985. Poetry into Drama. Early Tragedy and the Greek
Poetic Tradition (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London).
610 Bibliography
Hermann, G. 1805. Orphica (Lipsiae).

—. 1806. Homeri hymni et epigrammata (Lipsiae)
—. 1827. “Dissertatio de pronomine C*«.” In: G. Hermann, Opus-
cula (Lipsiae), 319–22.
Herren, S. 2008. “‘Fueritne mulier pulcherrima specie Melissa, quam
Iuppiter in apem convertit.’ Die Biene in der Antiken Mythologie.”
In: D. Engels and C. Nicolaye (eds.), Ille operum custos: Kultur-
geschichtliche Beiträge zur antiken Bienensymbolik und ihrer Rezep-
tion (Hildesheim/Zürich/New York), 40–59.
Herter, H. 1961. “Das unschuldige Kind.” JbAC 4: 146–62.
—. 1976. “Hermes: Ursprung und Wesen eines griechischen Gottes.”
RhM 119: 193–241.
—. 1981. “L’inno omerico a Hermes alla luce della problematica della
poesia orale.” In: C. Brillante, M. Cantilena, and C. O. Pavese
(eds.), I poemi epici rapsodici non omerici e la tradizione orale
(Padua), 183–201.
Heubeck, A. 1954. “Argeiphontes und Verwandtes.” BN 5: 19–25.
—. 1970. “Review of Gérard-Rousseau (1968).” Gnomon 42: 810–14.
—. 1984. “Review of Janko (1982).” Gymnasium 91: 550–52.
Heubeck, A., S. West. and J. B. Hainsworth. 1988. A Commentary on
Homer’s Odyssey (Oxford/New York).
Heyden, D. 1986. “Caves.” In: M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Re-
ligion III (New York), 127–33.
Hieronymus, F. H. 1970. “M)(. Übung, Lernen und angrenzende
Begriffe,” 2 vols. (Diss. Basel).
Higbie, C. 1990. Measure and Music. Enjambement and Sentence Struc-
ture in the Iliad (Oxford).
Hilgard, A. 1965. Grammatici Graeci IV: Theodosius Alexandrinus,
Georgius Choeroboscus, Sophronius Alexandrinus (Hildesheim).
Hill, B. L. 1966. “Notes on Fifth-Century Inventories.” Hesperia 35:
331–45.
Hiller, E. 1872. Eratosthenis Carminum Reliquiae (Lipsia).
Hirschberger, M. 2004. Gynaikon Katalogos und Megalai Ehoiai. Ein
Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen (Munich/
Lipsia).
Bibliography 611
Hirschberger, M. 2008. “Il tema della metamorfosi nel Catalogo esio-

deo delle donne.” In: G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (eds.), Esiodo,
cent’anni di papiri. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze,
7–8 giugno 2007 (Florence), 113–27.
Hirzel, R. 1979 (repr.) Der Eid (New York).
Hoekstra, A. 1969. The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition.
Studies in the Homeric Hymns to Apollo, to Aphrodite and to De-
meter (Amsterdam/London).
—. 1986. “Review of Janko (1982).” Mnemosyne 39: 158–64.
Hoffmann, O. 1900. “Zwei neue arkadische Inschriften.” Philologus 59:
201–205.
Holland, R. 1926. “Battos.” RhM 75: 156–83.
Hollander, H. 1886. Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der homerischen
Hymnen (Progr. Osnabrück).
Hollinshead, M. 1999. “‘Adyton,’ ‘Opisthodomos,’ and the Inner Room
of the Greek Temple.” Hesperia 68: 189–218.
Hollis, A. S. 1970. Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses VIII, Edited
with an Introduction and Commentary (Oxford).
—. 1990. Callimachus, Hecale (Oxford).
Hollmann, A. 2005. “The Manipulation of Signs in Herodotos’ Hi-
stories.” TAPhA 135: 279–327.
Holmberg, I. E. 1990. “Gender and Deceit in Early Greek Hexameter
Poetry.” (Diss. Yale).
—. 1997. “The Sign of Metis.” Arethusa 30: 1–33.
Holwerda, D. 1977. Scholia in Aristophanem: III Scholia vetera in
Nubes (Groningen).
Hooker, J. T. 1979. “Three Homeric Epithets: /«, 7«,
)«.” IF 84: 113–19.
Hopf, L. 1888. Thierorakel und Orakelthiere in alter und neuer Zeit. Eine
ethnologisch-zoologische Studie (Stuttgart).
Hopkinson, N. 1982. “Juxtaposed Prosodic Variants in Greek and
Latin Poetry.” Glotta 60: 162–77.
—. 1984. Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter. Edited with an Introduction
and Commentary (Cambridge).
Hübner, W. 1986. “Hermes als musischer Gott. Das Problem der dich-
612 Bibliography
terischen Wahrheit in seinem homerischen Hymnus.” Philologus

130: 153–74.
Hug, A. 1921. “Schlüssel.” RE II A 1: 565–69.
Humbert, J. 1937. Homère, Hymnes. Texte établi par J.H. (Paris).
Hunter, R. 1983. Eubulus, The Fragments. Edited with a Commentary
(Cambridge).
—. 2008. On Coming After I: Hellenistic Poetry and Its Reception (Ber-
lin/New York).
Huxley, G. 1970. “A Note on a Seven-Stringed Lyre.” JHS 90: 196–97.
Hyde, L. 2010. Trickster Makes This World. Mischief, Myth, and Art
(New York).
Hynes, W. J. 1997. “Mapping the Characteristics of Mythic Tricksters:
A Heuristic Guide.” In: W. J. Hynes and W. G. Doty (eds.), Mythi-
cal Trickster Figures. Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms (Tusca-
loosa/London), 33–45.
Hynes, W. J. and W. G. Doty. 1997. “Historical Overview of Theoretical
Issues: The Problem of the Trickster.” In: W. J. Hynes and
W. G. Doty (eds.), Mythical Trickster Figures. Contours, Contexts,
and Criticisms (Tuscaloosa/London), 13–32.
Ilgen, C. D. 1796. Hymni Homerici cum reliquis carminibus minoribus
Homero tribui solitis et Batrachomyomachia (Halis Saxonum).
Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry (Toronto).
Isler, F. 1908. Quaestiones metricae (Greifswald).
Jacoby, F. 1947. “The First Athenian Prose Writer.” Mnemosyne 13:
13–64.
Jaillard, D. 2007. Configurations d’Hermès. Une ‘théogonie hermaïque’
(Liège).
Jameson, M. H. 1956. “The Vowing of a Pelanos.” AJPh 77: 55–60.
—. 1987. “Agriculture and Greek Inscriptions: Rhamnous and Amor-
gos.” In: P H# « ! E))(
« λ
[
« φ
«, #A7, 3–9 #O " 1982 (#A7),
289–92.
—. 1994. “Theoxenia.” In: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice
from the Epigraphical Evidence. Proceedings of the Second Inter-
national Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Sweedish
Institute at Athens, 22–24 November 1991 (Stockholm, 1994), 35–57.
Bibliography 613
Jan, C. 1895. Musici scriptores Graeci (Lipsia).

Janko, R. 1978. “A Note on the Etymologies of « and
/ ! «.” Glotta 56: 192–95.
—. 1981. “The Structure of the Homeric Hymns. A Study in Genre.”
Hermes 109: 9–24.
—. 1982. Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in
Epic Diction (Cambridge).
—. 1991. “Review of Clay, Politics.” CR 41: 12–13.
—. 1992. The Iliad: a Commentary, vol. 4 Books 13–16 (Cambridge).
Jay-Robert, G. 1999. “Essai d’interprétation du sense du substantif hosiê
dans l’Odyssée et dans les Hymnes Homériques.” REA 101: 5–20.
Jeanmaire, H. 1939. Couroi et Courètes (Lille).
Johnston, R. W. and Mulroy, D. 2009. “The Hymn to Hermes and the
Athenian Altar of the Twelve Gods.” CW 103: 3–16.
Johnston, S. I. 2002. “Myth, Festival, and Poet: The Homeric Hymn to
Hermes and Its Performative Context.” CPh 97: 109–32.
—. 2003. “‘Initiation’ in Myth, ‘Initiation’ in Practice. The Homeric
Hymn to Hermes and Its Performative Context.” In: D. B. Dodd
and C. A. Faraone, Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Nar-
ratives. New Critical Perspectives (London/New York), 155–80.
—. 2008. Ancient Greek Divination (Malden).
Joly, R. 1967. Hippocrates, Vol. 6, 1, Du régime (Paris).
Jones, A. W. 1978. “Night and Day in Epic Narrative from Homer to
Quintus of Smyrna.” MPhL 3: 153–83.
Jones, J. W. 1956. The Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks (Oxford).
Jones, B. 2010. “Relative Chronology within (an) Oral Tradition.” CJ
105: 289–318.
Jordan, D. R. 1985. “A Survey of Greek Defixiones not Included in the
Special Corpora.” GRBS 26: 151–97.
—. 2000. “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000).” GRBS 41: 5–46.
Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie (Paris).
Kadletz, E. 1984. “The Sacrifice of Eumaios the Pig Herder.” GRBS
25: 99–105.
Kahn, L. 1978. Hermès passé ou les ambiguitès de la communication
(Paris).
614 Bibliography
Kaimio, M. 1974. “Music in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” Arctos 8:

29–42.
—. 1977. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature (Hel-
sinki).
Kambylis, A. 1963. “Zur Dichterweihe des Archilochos.” Hermes 91:
129–50.
Kannicht, R. 2004. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 5 Euripides
(Göttingen).
Karavites, P. 1992. Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making. Homer and the
Near East (Leiden/New York/Cologne).
Kassel R. and C. Austin. 1983–2001. Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin/New
York).
Kastner, W. 1967. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -«
(Heidelberg).
—. 1991. “T – : zu den Wurzeln - und - im Grie-
chischen.” MH 48: 65–85.
Katz, J. 1999. “Homeric Hymn to Hermes 296: )7 ! μ«
3 .” CQ 49: 315–19.
—. 2007. “What Linguists are Good For.” CW 100: 99–112.
Katz, J. and K. Volk. 2000. “‘Mere Bellies’?: A New Look at Theogony
26–8.” JHS 120: 122–31.
Katz-Anhalt, E. 1997. “A Bull for Poseidon: The Bull’s Bellow in Odys-
sey 21.46–50.” CQ 47: 15–25.
Kayser, C. L. (1870, 1871). Flavii Philostrati Opera, 2 vols. (Lipsiae).
Keith, A. M. 1995. The Play of Fictions. Studies in Ovid’s Metamor-
phoses 2 (Ann Arbor).
Keller, O. 1913. Die antike Tierwelt, 2 vols. (Lipsia).
Keller, G. A. 1946. “Eratosthenes und die alexandrinische Sterndich-
tung.” (Diss. Zurich).
Kemmer, E. 1903. Die Polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Litera-
tur (Würzburg).
Kennedy, G. A. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton).
—. 1980. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition
from Ancient to Modern Times (London).
—. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton).
Bibliography 615
Kerschensteiner, J. 1962. Kosmos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu

den Vorsokratikern. (Munich).
Keydell, R. 1967. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque (Berlin).
Keyßner, K. 1932. Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechi-
schen Hymnus (Stuttgart).
Kidd, D. 1997. Aratus Phaenomena, Edited with Introduction, Trans-
lation, and Commentary (Cambridge).
Kirk, G. S. 1968. “Review of West (1966).” JHS 88: 144–46.
Kloss, G. 1994. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld “Verlangen/Begehren” im
frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen).
Knaack, G. 1897. “Boio” RE III 1: 633–34.
Knebel, G. 1949. Untersuchungen zu den derivierten Praesentien bei
Homer (Hamburg).
Knecht, T. 1946. Geschichte der griechischen Komposita vom Typ
5" « (Biel).
Kock, Th. 1888. Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, vol. 3 (Lipsia).
Körner, O. 1930. Die homerische Tierwelt (Munich).
Körte, A. 1957, 1959. Menandri quae supersunt. Addenda adiecit
A. Thierfelder (Lipsia).
Koettgen, L. 1914. Quae ratio intercedat inter ‘Indagatores’ fabulam
Sophocleam et hymnum in Mercurium qui fertur homericus (Bonn).
Koller, H. 1956. “Das kitharodische Prooimion.” Philologus 100:
159–206.
—. 1965a. “Melos.” Glotta 43: 24–38.
—. 1965b. “!« $*«.” Glotta 43: 277–85.
—. 1969. “Die Himmelsmilch.” Glotta 47: 110–16.
Kontoleon, N. M. 1952. “N φλ λ #A /)*/
P .” AE 91: 32–95.
Korzeniewski, D. 1968. Griechische Metrik (Darmstadt).
Kotzia, P. 2007. “Child Talk in Ancient Greek Literature.” In: A.-F.
Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek from the Beginnings to
Late Antiquity (Cambridge), 1416–19.
616 Bibliography
Kouremenos Th., G. M. Parássoglou, and K. Tsantsanoglou. 2006.

The Derveni Papyrus. Edited with Introduction and Commentary
(Florence).
Kraus, W. 1955. “Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Grie-
chentum.” WS 68: 65–87.
Kretschmer, P. 1894. Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache
nach untersucht (Gütersloh).
—. 1907. “Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte.” Glotta 1: 9–59.
—. 1919–20. “Mythische Namen.” Glotta 10: 38–62.
Krischer, T. 1965. “3« und $)(7«.” Philologus 109: 161–74.
Kroll, W. 1926. “Liknon.” RE XIII 1: 538–41.
Kruse, M. 1959. “Die parodistischen Elemente im Lazarillo de
Tormes.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 10: 292–304.
Kuhlmann, P. 1998. “Zeus in den Dionysiaca des Nonnos. Die Demon-
tage einer epischen Götterfigur.” RhM 142: 392–417.
Kuhn, A. 1886. Die Herabkunft des Feuers und des Göttertranks (Gün-
tersloh).
Kuiper, K. 1910. “De discrepantiis hymni homerici in Mercurium.”
Mnemosyne 38: 1–50.
Kuntner, L. 1985. Die Gebährhaltung der Frau, Schwangerschaft und
Geburt aus geschichtlicher, volkskündlicher und medizinischer Sicht
(Munich).
Kurke, L. 1997. “Inventing the hetaira: Sex, Politics, and Discursive
Conflict in Archaic Greece.” ClAnt 16: 106–50.
—. 2010. Aesopic Conversations. Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue,
and the Invention of Greek Prose (Princeton).
Kyriakou, P. 1995. Homeric Hapax Legomena in the Argonautica of
Apollonius Rhodius. A Literary Study (Stuttgart).
Laffineur, R. 1978. L’orfèvrerie rhodienne orientalisante (Paris).
Lamberton, R. 1986. Homer the Theologian. Neoplatonist Allegorical
Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley).
Lanata, G. 1963. Poetica pre-platonica: testimonianze e frammenti (Flo-
rence).
Landels, J. G. 1999. Music in Ancient Greece and Rome (London/New
York).
Bibliography 617
Lang, C. 1881. Lucius Annaeus Cornutus: Theologiae Graecae Compen-

dium (Lipsia).
Laroche, E. 1949. Histoire de la racine NEM- en grec ancien (Paris).
La Roche, J. 1882. “Miscellaneen.” ZÖstG 33: 891–903.
—. 1898a. “Zahlenverhältnisse im homerischen Vers.” WS 20: 1–69.
—. 1898b. “Untersuchungen über den Vers bei Hesiod und in den
homerischen Hymnen.” WS 20: 70–90.
Larson, J. 1995. “The Corycian Nymphs and the Bee Maidens of the
Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” GRBS 36: 341–57.
—. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore (Oxford/New York).
—. 2005. “Lugalbanda and Hermes.” CPh 100: 1–16.
Lasso de la Vega, J. S. 1955. “Glosas de Hesiquio.” Emerita 23: 96–121.
Latacz, J. 1966. Zum Wortfeld “Freude” in der Sprache Homers (Heidel-
berg).
Latte, K. 1931. “Beiträge zum griechischen Strafrecht. II Die Strafen.”
Hermes 66: 129–58.
—. 1939. “Orakel.” RE XVIII 1: 829–66.
—. 1953, 1966. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 1 A – :, vol. 2,
E – O (Hauniae).
—. 1954–55. “Zur griechischen Wortforschung II.” Glotta 34: 190–202.
Laum, B. 1928. Das alexandrinische Akzentuationssystem unter Zu-
grundelegung der theoretischen Lehren der Grammatiker und mit
Heranziehung der praktischen Verwendung in den Papyri (Pader-
born).
Lazzeroni, R. 1971. “Su alcuni deverbali greci e sanscriti.” Studi e saggi
di linguistica 11: 40–50.
Leduc, C. 2001. “Cinquante vaches pour une lyre! Musique, échange et
théologie dans l’Hymne à Hermès I.” In: P. Brulé and C. Vendries
(eds.), Chanter les Dieux: musique et religion dans l’Antiquité
grecque et romaine. Actes du colloque des 16, 17 et 18 décembre 1999
(Rennes et Lorient) (Rennes), 19–36.
—. 2005. “‘Le pseudo-sacrifice d’Hermès’ Hymne homérique à Hermès
I, vers 112–142. Poésie rituelle, théologie et histoire.” Kernos 18:
141–65.
618 Bibliography
Le Feuvre, C. 2004. “Note sur l’adjectif épique Ν «, $ 1«.”

RPh 78: 257—64.
Lehmann, G. A. 1980. “Der ‘Erste Heilige Krieg’: eine Fiktion?” His-
toria 29: 242–46.
Lembach, K. 1970. Die Pflanzen bei Theokrit (Heidelberg).
Lenaiou, Euios (= [(, EΚ« [= X. X («]). 1935.
#A (>!!) ().
Lentz, A. 1867, 1868, 1870. Herodiani technici reliquiae, Grammatici
Graeci vol. III/1, III/2 (Lipsia).
Lenz, A. 1980. Das Proöm des frühen griechischen Epos. Ein Beitrag
zum poetischen Selbsteverständnis (Bonn).
Lenz, L. H. 1975. Der homerische Aphroditehymnus und die Aristie des
Aineias in der Ilias (Bonn).
Létoublon, F. 1983. “Le miroir et la boucle.” Poétique 14: 19–36.
Leumann, M. 1927. “$)*«.” Glotta 15: 153–55.
—. 1952–53. “‘Aoristi Mixti’ und Imperative vom Futurstamm im
Griechischen.” Glotta 32: 204–13.
Lewis S. 1996. News and Society in the Greek Polis (London).
Lieberg, G. 1982. Poeta creator. Studien zu einer Figur der antiken Dich-
tung (Amsterdam).
Lilja, S. 1972. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity (Hel-
sinki).
Lincoln, B. 2003. “The Initiatory Paradigm in Anthropology, Folklore,
and History of Religions.” In: D. B. Dodd and C. A. Faraone
(eds.), Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives. New Criti-
cal Perspectives (London/New York), 241–54.
Lingohr, H.-J. 1954. “Die Bedeutung der etymologischen Namens-
erklärungen in den Gedichten Homers und Hesiods und in den
homerischen Hymnen” (Diss. F.U.Berlin).
Lissarague, F. 1990. “Why Satyrs Are Good to Represent.” In: J. J.
Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athe-
nian Drama in Its Social Context (Princeton), 228–36.
Lloyd, M. 2004. “The Politeness of Achilles: Off-record Conversation
Strategies in Homer and the Meaning of Kertomia.” JHS 124:
75–89.
Bibliography 619
Lobeck, C. A. 1853. Pathologiae Graeci Sermonis Elementa, Pars Prior

(Regimonti Borussorum).
Lohmeyer, E. 1919. “Vom göttlichen Wohlgeruch.” SHAW 9: 1–52.
Lohsee, E. 1872. De hymno in Mercurium homerico (Berlin).
Lolos, Y. 2003. “Greek Roads: a Commentary on the Ancient Terms.”
Glotta 79: 137–74.
Long, C. R. 1987. The Twelve Gods of Greece and Rome (Leiden).
López Eire, A. 1999. “Sobre el eufemismo en la Oratoria ática y en la
Retórica.” In: F. de Martino and A. H. Sommerstein (eds.), Studi
sull’eufemismo (Bari), 315–67.
López Jimeno, M. del Amor. 1999. Nuevas Tabellae Defixionis Áticas
(Amsterdam).
Ludwich, A. 1887. “Zum homerischen Hermeshymnus.” BPhW 7:
697–700.
—. 1889. “Zum homerischen Hermeshymnus.” BPhW 9: 170–72.
—. 1908. Homerischer Hymnenbau nebst seinen Nachahmungen bei
Kallimachos, Theokrit, Vergil, Nonnos und Anderen (Lipsia).
Lupu, E. 22009. Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents.
Second Edition with a Postscript (Leiden/Boston).
Luther, W. 1935.“Wahrheit” und “Lüge” im ältesten Griechentum (Borna).
Lyne, R. O. A. M. 2005. “Horace Odes 1 and the Alexandrian Edition
of Alcaeus.” CQ 55: 542–58.
Maas, M. and Snyder, J. M. 1989. Stringed Instruments of Ancient
Greece (New Haven)
Maas, P. 1912. “Mitteilungen zu den neuen Klassikertexten der Oxy-
rhynchos-Papyri.” BPhW 34: 1075–77.
—. 1962. Greek Metre, Translated by Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford).
MacDowell, D. M. 1971. Aristophanes Wasps; Edited with Introduction
and Commentary (Oxford).
MacLachlan, B. 1993. The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry
(Princeton).
Macleod, M. D. 1987. Luciani Opera (Oxford).
Maehler, H. 1963. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechen-
tum bis zur Zeit Pindars (Göttingen).
—. 1982. Die Lieder des Bakchylides, 2 vols. (Leiden).
620 Bibliography
Maffi, A. 1982. “T ¹ λ Ρ!. Contributo allo studio della

terminologia giuridico-sacrale greca.” In: J. Modrzejewski and
D. Liebs (eds.), Symposion 1977. Vorträge zur griechischen und hel-
lenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Cologne/Vienna), 33–53.
Magini, D. 1996. “Aspetti di tecnica narrativa nei Dialogi deorum e nei
Dialogi marini di Luciano: estratto e sintesi.” Sileno 22: 177–98.
Mahne, G. L. 1832. Epistolae mutuae duumvirorum clarissimorum Davi-
dis Ruhnkenii et Lud. Casp. Valckenaerii (Ullisingae).
Mair, A. W. 1921. Callimachus Hymns and Epigrams, Lycophron Alex-
andra, Aratus Phaenomena (London).
Majorel, F. 2003. “Hermès ou le mouvement spiralé de l’initiation.”
BAGB 1: 53–81.
Malten, L. 1939. “Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Sagenfor-
schung.” Hermes 74: 176–206.
—. 1961. Die Sprache des menschlichen Antlitzes im frühen Griechen-
tum (Berlin).
Maltese, E. 1982. Sofocle, Ichneutae. Introduzione, testo critico, interpre-
tazione e commento (Florence).
Mantis, A. G. [= M
«, #A. f.] 1983. P ")7
« -
φ« ¹ λ ¹ !κ $ / '))( κ
/( (Diss. >!!) ().
Manuwald, G. 2002. “Das Singen des kleinen Hermes und des Silen:
zum Homerischen ‘Hermeshymnos’ und zu Vergils ‘Sechster
Ekloge’.” RhM 145: 150–75.
Marót, K. 1961. “Autolykos.” In: V. Georgiev and J. Irmscher, Minoica
und Homer (Berlin), 24–30.
Maronitis, D. N. (M («, :. N.) 1973. #A&7(!( λ *!«
#O!!. H ) κ
« #O1!!« (#A7).
Marsh, T. 1979. “Magic, Poetics, Seduction: An Analysis of Thelgein
in Greek Literature.” (Diss. SUNY Buffalo).
Marsh, D. 1998. Lucian and the Latins. Humor and Humanism in the
Early Renaissance (Ann Arbor).
Martin, B. 1605. Variarum lectionum libri quatuor, in quibus, aliquot
melioris notae auctores, tum Graeci, tum Latini, variis locis explican-
tur, illustrantur, and a mendis plerisque vindicantur (Paris).
Bibliography 621
Martin, J. 1998. Aratos Phénomènes, Texte établi, traduit et commenté

(Paris).
Martin, R. P. 1983. Healing, Sacrifice, and Battle. Amechania and Re-
lated Concepts in Early Greek Poetry (Innsbruck).
—. “Similes and Performance.” In: E. Bakker and A. Kahane (eds.),
Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic
Text (Washington, D. C.), 138–66.
Marzullo, B. 1968. “La ‘coppia contigua’ in Esichio.” QIFC 3: 70–87.
Mastronarde, D. 1994. Euripides Phoenissae, Edited with Introduction
and Commentary (Cambridge).
Mathiesen, T. J. 1999. Apollo’s Lyre. Greek Music and Music Theory in
Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Lincoln/London).
Matthews, V. J. 1996. Antimachus of Colophon (Leiden/New York).
Matthiae, A. 1800. Animadversiones in Hymnos homericos cum prole-
gomenis de cuiusque consilio, partibus, aetate (Lipsia).
Maurophrydes, B. 1858. “Etymologie und Erklärung des Verbums
.” ZVS 7: 346–53.
Mayer, M. 1935. “Musai.” RE 16: 680–757.
Mayerson, P. 2000. “The Meaning and Function of )(*« and Related
Features in the Production of Wine.” ZPE 131: 161–5.
McCail, R. C. 1970. “[: Two Testimonia in Later Greek Poetry.”
CQ 20: 306–308.
McDaniel, W. B. 1900. “Conjectural Emendations in the Homeric
Hymns.” HSCPh 11: 73–91.
McInerney, J. 2010. The Cattle of the Sun. Cows and Culture in the
World of the Ancient Greeks (Princeton).
McKenzie, R. 1925. “Etymologies.” CQ 19: 108–10.
McLennan, G. R. 1975. Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus, Introduction and
Commentary (Rome).
Meier-Brügger, M. 1989. “Griechisch Sφ7, φ(, Ν« und
'5.” MSS 50: 91–96.
Meiggs R. and D. Lewis 1999. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscrip-
tions (Oxford).
Meineke, A. 1836. Johannes Cinnamus, Epitome rerum ab Johannae et
Alexio Comnenis gestarum (Bonn).
622 Bibliography
Meister, K. 1966 (repr.). Die homerische Kunstsprache (Darmstadt).

Meloni, P. 1975. Il profumo dell’immortalità. L’interpretazione patristica
di Cantico 1, 3 (Roma).
Merkelbach, R. 1959. “Kritische Beiträge.” In: H. Dahlmann (ed.), Stu-
dien zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik (Cologne/Opladen), 155–84.
Merkelbach, R. and M. L. West. 1999. Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford).
Meuli, K. 1921. Odyssee und Argonautika. Untersuchungen zur griechi-
schen Sagengeschichte und zum Epos (Berlin).
—. 1946. “Griechische Opferbräuche.” In: O. Gigon et al. (eds.), Phyl-
lobolia für Peter von der Mühll (Basel), 185–288.
Miller, E. 1868. Mélanges de littérature grecque, contenant un grand
nombre de textes inéndits (Paris).
Miller, J. F. 1991. Ovid’s Elegiac Festivals. Studies in the Fasti (Frank-
furt am Main).
Minton, W. W. 1960. “Homer’s Invocations of the Muses: Traditional
Patterns.” TAPhA 91: 292–309.
Miralles C. 1993. Ridere in Omero (Pisa).
Mommsen, A. 1886. Chronologie. Untersuchungen über das Kalender-
wesen der Griechen, insonderheit der Athener (Leipzig).
Mondi, R. 1978. “The Function and Social Position of the keryx in
Early Greece.” (Diss. Harvard).
Montiglio, S. 2005. Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture (Chicago/
London).
Moorhouse, A. C. 1947. “The Meaning and Use of *« and S)«
in the Greek Poetical Vocabulary.” CQ 41: 31–45.
—. 1952. “On Aspect in the Meaning of @ .” Mnemosyne 5: 13–18.
Morani, M. 1990. “Tre aggettivi omerici.” Sileno 16: 151–60.
Morgan, M. H. 1890. “De ignis eliciendi modis apud antiquos.”
HSCPh 1: 13–64.
Morrison, A. D. 2007. The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic
Poetry (Cambridge).
Morpurgo Davies, A. 1964. “‘Doric’ Features in the Language of He-
siod.” Glotta 42: 138–65.
Morrow, K. D. 1985. Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture
(Madison).
Bibliography 623
Morsbach, L. 1878. “Über den Dialekt Theokrits.” In: G. Curtius and

K. Brugmann (eds.), Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen
Grammatik (Leipzig), 1–38.
Müller, K. O. 1833. “Die Hermes-Grotte bei Pylos.” Hyperboreisch-
Römische Studien für Archäologie 1: 310–17.
—. 1841. Griechische Literaturgeschichte, 2 vols. (Breslau).
Müller-Stübing, H. 1879. “Zu Homer Odyss. 9,218ff. und Hymn. Mer-
cur. 308.” Wissenschaftliche Monats-Blätter 7: 69–73.
Müri, W. 1976. “YMBO[ON, Wort- und sachgeschichtliche Studie”.
In: E. Vischer (ed.), Ausgewählte Wort- und Sachgeschichtliche For-
schungen zur Antike von W. M. (Basel), 1–44.
Mugler, C. 1960. “La lumière et la vision dans la poésie grecque.” REG
73: 40–72.
Munson, R. V. 2001. “Ananke in Herodotus.” JHS 121: 30–49.
Murray, P. 1981. “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece.” JHS 101: 87–100.
—. 1996. Plato on Poetry. Ion; Republic 376e–398b; Republic 595–
608b (Cambridge).
Naber, S. A. 1864, 1865. Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, 2 vols. (Leiden).
Nagy, G. 1982. “Hesiod.” In: T. J. Luce (ed.), Ancient Writers, Greece
and Rome, vol. 1 Homer to Caesar (New York), 43–73.
—. 1990a. Greek Mythology and Poetics (Ithaca/London).
—. 1990b. “Ancient Greek Poetry, Prophecy, and Concepts of The-
ory.” In: J. L. Kugel (ed.), Poetry and Prophecy. The Beginnings of a
Literary Tradition (Ithaca/London), 56–64.
—. 1996. Poetry as Performance. Homer and Beyond (Cambridge).
—. 21999. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic
Greek Poetry (Baltimore).
—. 2002. Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music: The Poetics of the Pan-
athenaic Festival in Classical Athens (Cambridge, Mass.).
—. 2011. “The Earliest Phases in the Reception of the Homeric
Hymns.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative
Essays (Oxford), 280–333.
Naiden, F. S. 2007. “The Fallacy of the Willing Victim.” JHS 127: 61–73.
Németh, G. 1994. “M# R ")Λ. Regulations Concerning
Everyday Life in a Greek Temenos.” In: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient
624 Bibliography
Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. Proceedings of

the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized
by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22–24 November 1991 (Stock-
holm), 59–64.
Nenci, G. 1958. “Il « nei poemi omerici.” PP 61: 220–41.
Nesselrath, H.-G. 2010. “Vom kleinen Meisterdieb zum vielgeplagten
Götterboten. Hermes in den Göttergesprächen Lukians.” In:
C. Schmitz (ed.), Mythos im Alltag – Alltag im Mythos. Die Banali-
tät des Alltags in Unterschidelichen literarischen Verwendungskon-
texten (Munich), 147–59.
Neubecker, A. J. 1977. Altgriechische Musik: eine Einführung (Darm-
stadt).
Neugebauer, O. 1963. “Decem tulerunt fastidia menses.” AJPh 84: 64–65.
Niles, J. D. 1979. “On the Design of the ‘Hymn to Delian Apollo’.” CJ
75: 36–39.
Nilsson, M. 1955. Geschichte der griechischen Religion (Munich).
Nimis, S. A. 1999. “Ring-Composition and Linearity in Homer.” In:
A. E. Mackay (ed.), Signs of Orality: the Oral Tradition and Its
Influence in the Greek and Roman World (Leiden/Boston/Cologne),
65–78.
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. 1970. A Commentary on Horace
Odes, Book I (Oxford).
Nobili, C. 2011. L’“inno omerico a Ermes” e le tradizioni poetiche locali
(Milan).
Norden, E. 1913. Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formenge-
schichte religiöser Rede (Berlin).
Notopoulos, J. A. 1962. “The Homeric Hymns as Oral Poetry.” AJPh
83: 337–68.
Novaro-Lefèvre, D. 2000. “Le culte d’Héra à Pérachora (viiie – vie s.):
essai de bilan.” REG 113: 42–69.
Nünlist, R. 1998. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen
Dichtung (Stuttgart/Lipsia).
Nussbaum, A. J. 1986. Head and Horn in Indo-European, 2 vols. (Ber-
lin).
Obbink, D. 2001. “The Genre of Plataea: Generic Unity in the New
Simonides.” In: Boedeker and Sider, 65–85.
Bibliography 625
O’Bryhim, S. 1997. “Hesiod and the Cretan Cave.” RhM 140: 95–96.
Ohl, R. Th. 1928. “The Enigmas of Symphosius.” (Diss. Univ. of Penn-
sylvania).
Ohlert, K. 1912. Rätsel und Rätselspiele der alten Griechen (Berlin).
Olck, F. 1897. “Biene.” RE III 1: 431–50.
Olivieri, A. 1897. Mythographi Graeci, vol. 3 (Lipsia).
Olsen, S. L. 2006. “Early Horse Domestication on the Eurasian
Steppe.” In: M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, and
B. D. Smith (eds.), Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and
Archaeological Paradigms (Berkeley/Los Angeles), 245–69.
Olson, S. D. 1998. Aristophanes, Peace, Edited with Introduction and
—. 2002. Aristophanes, Acharnians, Edited with Introduction and Com-
mentary (Oxford).
Olson, S. D. and Sens, A. 2000. Archestratos of Gela. Greek Culture and
Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Text, Translation, and Com-
mentary (Oxford).
O’Neill, Jr. E. 1942. “The Localization of Metrical Types in the
Greek Hexameter. Homer, Hesiod, and the Alexandrians.” YCS 8:
105–78.
Onians, R. B. 1988. The Origins of European Thought about the Body,
the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate (Cambridge).
Osborne, R. 1985–86. “The Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai.”
PCPhS 31: 47–73.
Østergaard, C. 1902. “ « #A φ*(«.” Hermes 37: 333–38.
Otto, W. 71983. Die Götter Griechenlands: das Bild des Göttlichen im
Spiegel des griechischen Geistes (Frankfurt am Main).
—. 31995. Die Musen und der göttliche Ursprung des Singens und
Sagens (Düsseldorf/Cologne).
Pace, C. 2004. “Il tizzone sotto la cenere: Apoll. Rh. 3. 275 ss. e l’Inno
omerico a Hermes.” In: R. Pretagostini and E. Dettori (eds.), La
cultura ellenistica: l’opera letteraria e l’esegesi antica. Atti del Con-
vegno COFIN 2001 (Roma), 95–111.
Page, D. L. 1955. Euripides Medea. Text Edited with Introduction and
—. 1959. Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford).
626 Bibliography
Page, D. L. 1962. Select Papyri in Five Volumes: III Literary Papyri,

Poetry (Cambridge, Mass.).
Pagliaro, A. 21961. Saggi di critica semantica (Florence).
—. 1963. Nuovi saggi di critica semantica (Florence).
Papademetriou, J.-Th. A. 1997. Aesop as an Archetypal Hero (Athens).
Paquette, D. 1984. L.’instrument de musique dans la céramique de la
Grèce antique. Études d’organologie (Paris).
Parke, H. W. and D. E. W. Wormell. 1956. The Delphic Oracle (Oxford).
Parker, H. N. 1999. “Greek Embryological Calendars and a Fragment
from the Lost Work of Damastes On the Care of Pregnant Women
and of Infants.” CQ 49: 515–53.
Parker, R. 1991. “The ‘Hymn to Demeter’ and the ‘Homeric Hymns’.”
G&R 38: 1–17.
Parry A. (ed.), 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected
Papers of Milman Parry (Oxford).
Pârvulescu, A. 1985. “Homeric () μ« $)) .” Glotta 63:
152–59.
Patzer, H. 1952. “W5) *«.” Hermes 80: 314–25.
—. 1970. “Review of ‘Zucchelli, B. 1963. Γ 7«. Origine e storia
del termine (Brescia)’.” Gnomon 42: 641–52.
Pavese, C. O. 1972. Tradizioni e generi poetici della Grecia arcaica
(Rome).
—. 1974. Studi sulla tradizione epica rapsodica (Rome).
Pearson, A. C. 1917. The Fragments of Sophocles (Cambridge).
Pease, A. S. 1911. “The Omen of Sneezing.” CPh 6: 429–43.
—. 1939. “Scintillae.” CPh 34: 148.
Peek, W. 1955. Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Grab-Epigramme (Berlin).
—. 1959. “Neues von Archilochos.” Philologus 99: 4–50.
Pelliccia, H. 1995. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar (Göt-
tingen).
Penglase, C. 1994. Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and In-
fluence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod (London).
Pernée, L. 1985. “S !) (Eschyle, Les Perses, v. 10).” Glotta 63:
167–71.
Bibliography 627
Perpillou, J.-L. 1996. Recherches lexicales en grec ancien. Étymologie,

analogie, representations (Paris).
Peruzzi, E. 1993. “La poesia conviviale di Roma arcaica.” PP 48:
332–73.
Perry, B. E. 1952. Aesopica: a Series of Texts Relating to Aesop or As-
cribed to Him or Closely Connected with the Literary Tradition that
Bears His Name (Urbana).
Petropoulou, A. 1987. “The Sacrifice of Eumaeus Reconsidered.”
GRBS 28: 135–49.
Pfeiffer, R. 1949. Callimachus, 2 vols. (Oxford).
Pfister, F. 1924. “Epiphanie.” RE Suppl. IV: 277–323.
Pierson, J. 1752. Verisimilium Libri Duo (Lugduni Batavorum).
—. 1830. Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum cum Jo. Hudsoni, Steph.
Bergleri, Claud. Salierii, Schlaegeri aliorumque notis. Accedit Aelii
Herodiani Philetaerus e Ms. nunc primum editus item eiusdem frag-
mentum e Mss. emendatius atque auctius cum annotationibus suis et
plerisque Jo. Frid. Fischeri denuo edidit G. Ae. Koch (Lipsia).
Pöhlmann, E. 1987. “Zwei Elgin-Leiern im British Museum?” In:
M. von Albrecht and W. Schubert (eds.), Musik in der Antike und
Neuzeit (Frankfurt am Main/Bern/New York), 319–31.
Pöhlmann, E. and E. Tichy. 1982. “Zur Herkunft und Bedeutung von
*))5.” In: J. Tischler (ed.), Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift für
Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag (Innsbruck), 287–315.
Pötscher, W. 1986. “Das Selbstverständnis des Dichters in der home-
rischen Poesie.” Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 27: 9–22.
—. 2004. “Zu ps.-hom. Hermes-Hymnus, Vers 383.” In: H. Heftner
and K. Tomaschitz (eds.), Ad fontes! Festschrift für Gerhard
Dobesch zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September
2004 dargebracht von Kollegen, Schülern und Freunden (Vienna),
101–103.
—. 2004–5. “Textkritisches zum ps.-Hom. Hermes-Hymnus, Vers
473.” Acta Classica Univ. Scient. Debrecen. 40–41: 7–11.
Pohlenz, M. 1933. “Tμ . Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des grie-
chischen Geistes.” Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 16: 53–92.
628 Bibliography
Pokorny, J. 52005. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols.

(Tübingen).
Polunin, O. 1980. Flowers of Greece and the Balkans. A Field Guide
(Oxford/New York).
Polunin, O. und A. Huxley. 41976. Blumen am Mittelmeer [= Flowers of
the Mediterranean, translated by D. Podlech] (Munich/Bern/
Vienna).
Pontani, F. 2007, 2012. Scholia graeca in Odysseam: 1. Scholia ad libros
–". 1. Scholia ad libros – (Rome).
Pordomingo, F. 2007. “Ejercicios preliminares de la composición re-
tórica y literaria en papiro: el encomio.” In: J. A. Fernández Del-
gado, F. Pordomingo, A. Stramaglia (eds.), Escuela y Literatura en
Grecia Antigua. Actas del simposio internacional, Universidad de
Salamanca, 7–19 Noviembre de 2004 (Cassino), 405–53.
Porter, H. N. 1949. “Repetitions in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.”
AJPh 70: 249–72.
—. 1951. “The Early Greek Hexameter.” YClS 12: 1–63.
Porzig, W. 1942. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im In-
dogermanischen (Berlin).
Postgate, J. P. 1924. A Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek
(London).
Postlethwaite, N. 1979. “Formula and Formulaic: Some Evidence from
the Homeric Hymns.” Phoenix 33: 1–18.
Pratt, L. H. 1993. Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood
and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics (Ann Arbor).
Preisigke, F. 1915. Fachwörterbuch des offentlichen Verwaltungsdiens-
tens Ägyptens in den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-
römischen Zeit (Göttingen).
Preller, L. 1846. “Der Hermesstab.” Philologus 1: 512–21.
—. 1860. Griechische Mythologie (Berlin).
Preminger, A. and T. V. F. Brogan. 1993, The New Princeton Encyclo-
pedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton).
Prévot, A. 1935. “Verbs grecs relatifs à la vision et noms d’oeil.” RPh 9:
133–60, 233–75.
Prier, R. A. 1989. Thauma Idesthai: The Phenomenology of Sight and
Appearance in Archaic Greece (Tallahassee).
Bibliography 629
Pritchett, W. K. 1979. The Greek State at War, Part III: Religion (Ber-
keley/Los Angeles/London).
—. 1998. Pausanias Periegetes, 2 vols. (Amsterdam).
Pritchett, W. K. and O. Neugebauer. 1947. The Calendars of Athens
(Cambridge, Mass.).
Probert, P. 2006. Ancient Greek Accentuation – Synchronic Patterns,
Frequency Effects, and Prehistory (Oxford).
Pucci, P. 1977. Hesiod and the Language of Poetry (Baltimore/London).
—. 1998. The Songs of the Sirens. Essays on Homer (Lanham/New
York/Oxford).
—. 2007. Inno alle Muse (Esiodo, Teogonia, 1–115). Testo, introdu-
zione, traduzione e commento (Pisa/Rome).
Pulleyn, S. 1997. Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford).
Quinn, A. 1982. Figures of Speech. 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase (Salt Lake
City).
Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum (Lipsia).
Race, W. H. 1982. “Aspects of Rhetoric and Form in Greek Hymns.”
GRBS 23: 5–14.
—. 1992. “How Greek Poems Begin.” YClS 29: 13–38.
Radermacher, L. 1904. “Griechischer Sprachgebrauch.” Philologus 63:
1–11.
—. 1924. “Christus unter den Schriftgelehrten.” RhM 73: 232–39.
—. 1928–29.“Synizese von Iota.” Philologus 84: 257–59.
—. 1931. Der homerische Hermeshymnus (Wien).
—. 1933. “Zum Hermeshymnus.” CQ 27: 156–57.
Radin, A. P. 1988. “Sunrise, Sunset: _« in Homeric Epic.” AJPh 109:
293–307.
Radin, P. 1955. The Trickster. A Study in American Indian Mythology
(New York).
Radke, G. 2007. Die Kindheit des Mythos. Die Erfindung der Literatur-
geschichte in der Antike (München).
Radt, S. 1985. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta III: Aeschylus (Göt-
tingen).
—. 2002. Strabons Geographica (Göttingen).
630 Bibliography
Raingeard, P. 1934. Hermès psychagogue. Essai sur les origines du culte

d’Hermès (Rennes).
Rakoczy, T. 1996. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter.
Eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Litera-
tur (Munich).
Ramelli, I. 1998. “La sfera semantica dell’olfatto in Apollonio Rodio e
nei poemi omerici.” Aevum(ant) 11: 363–75.
Ramelli, I. and Lucchetta, G. 2004. Allegoria, Vol. 1: L’età classica
(Milan).
Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis.
A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.
C. Edited with the collaboration of L. H. Jeffery (Cambridge,
Mass.).
Reece, S. 1993. The Stranger’s Welcome. Oral Theory and the Aesthetics
of the Homeric Hospitality Scene (Michigan).
—. 1997. “A figura etymologica in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” CJ
93: 29–39.
—. 1999. “! « 1« E
« (Iliad 20.72) The Modification of
a Traditional Formula.” Glotta 75: 85–106.
—. 2007. “Homer’s Asphodel Meadow.” GRBS 47: 389–400.
—. 2009. Homer’s Winged Words: the Evolution of Early Greek Epic
Diction in the Light of Oral Theory (Leiden/Boston).
Reed, J. D. 1997. Bion of Smyrna: The Fragments and the Adonis (Cam-
bridge).
Reinsberg, C. 1989. Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Grie-
chenland (Munich).
Reitzenstein, R. 1893. Epigramm und Skolion (Giessen).
Renehan, R. 1971. “The Michigan Alcidamas-Papyrus: A Problem in
Methodology: For George Koniaris.” HSPh 75: 85–105.
—. 1982. Greek Lexicographical Notes (Göttingen).
—. 1986. “A New Hesiodic Fragment.” CPh 81: 221–22.
Rexine, J. 1986. “Daimon in Classical Greek Literature.” Platon 37:
29–52.
Richardson, N. J. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Edited with In-
troduction and Commentary (Oxford).
Bibliography 631
Richardson, N. J. 1975. “Homeric Professors in the Age of the Soph-

ists.” PCPS 201: 65–81.
—. 1977. “Review of Càssola (1975)”. JHS 97: 175–76.
—. 1987. “The Individuality of Homer’s Language.” In: J. M. Brem-
mer, I. J. F. de Jong and J. Kalff (eds.), Homer: Beyond Oral
Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation (Amsterdam),
165–84.
—. 2007. “The Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” In: P. J. Finglass, C. Col-
lard, and N. J. Richardson (eds.), Hesperos: Studies in Ancient
Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday
(Oxford), 83–94.
—. 2010. Three Homeric Hymns (Cambridge).
Richter, W. 1968. Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter (Göt-
tingen).
Ridgeway, W. 1888. “Homerica.” JPh 17: 109–16.
Riess, E. 1893. “Aberglaube.” RE I 1: 29–93.
Rinon, Y. 2006. “Mise en abyme and Tragic Signification in the Odys-
sey.” Mnemosyne 59: 208–25.
Risch, E. 1974. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache (Berlin/New York).
—. 1985. “Homerisch , lakonisch ζ und die alte
Erzählprosa.” ZPE 60: 1–9.
Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne. 2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions
404–323 BC. Edited with Introduction, Translations, and Commen-
taries (Oxford).
Robert, C. 1906. “Zum homerischen Hermeshymnus.” Hermes 41:
389–425.
Robert, F. 1939. Thymèlé; Recherches sur la signification et la desti-
nation des monuments circulaires dans l’architecture religieuse de la
Grèce (Paris).
Robert, L. 1930. “Pantomimen im griechischen Orient.” Hermes 65:
106–22.
—. 1974. “Epigraphie et antiquités grecques.” Annuaire du Collège de
France 74: 533–47.
Robert, L. and J. Robert. 1989. Claros I: Décrets Hellénistiques, fasci-
cule I (Paris).
632 Bibliography
Robert-Tornow, W. 1893. De apium mellisque apud veteris significatione

et symbolica et mythologica (Berlin).
Roberts, H. 1980. “The Technique of Playing Ancient Greek Instru-
ments of the Lyre Type.” In: T. C. Mitchell (ed.), The British Mu-
seum Yearbook 4: Music and Civilisation (London), 43–76.
—. 1981. “Reconstructing the Greek Tortoise-Shell Lyre.” World
Archaeology 12: 303–12.
Robertson, N. 1978. “The Myth of the First Sacred War.” CQ 28:
38–73.
Robinson D. M. and J. W. Graham. 1938. Excavations at Olynthus. Part
VIII: The Hellenic House. A Study of the Houses Found at Olynthus
with a Detailed Account of Those Excavated in 1931 and 1934 (Bal-
timore).
Roeger, L. 1924. AI:O KYNEH. Das Märchen von der Unsichtbar-
keit in den homerischen Gedichten. Eine sprachgeschichtlich-mytho-
logische Untersuchung (Graz).
Ron, M. 1987. “The Restricted Abyss: Nine Problems in the Theory of
Mise en Abyme.” Poetics Today 8: 417–38.
Roochnik, D. 1990. “Homeric Speech Acts: Word and Deed in the
Epics.” CJ 85: 289–99.
Roscalla, F. 1998. Presenze simboliche dell’ape nella Grecia antica (Flo-
rence).
Roscher, W. H. 1883. Nektar und Ambrosia. Mit einem Anhang über die
Grundbedeutung der Aphrodite und Athene (Lipsia).
Rose, H. J. 1948. “Review of Brown (1947).” CR 62: 153–54.
—. 1954. “Chthonian Cattle.” Numen 1: 213–27.
Rosokoki, A. 1995. Die Erigone des Eratosthenes: eine kommentierte
Ausgabe der Fragmente (Heidelberg).
Rossbach, O. 1916. “Verkannte seltene Wörter bei Livius und im home-
rischen Hermeshymnus.” BPhW 23: 733–36.
Rougier-Blanc, S. 2005. Les maisons homériques. Vocabulaire architec-
tural et sémantique du bâti (Nancy).
Rudberg, G. 1929. “Zu den Bacchen des Euripides.” SO 4: 29–32.
Rückert, B. 1998. Die Herme im öffentlichen und privaten Leben der
Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der griechischen Herme als
Grenzmal, Inschriftenträger und Kultbild des Hermes (Regensburg).
Bibliography 633
Ruhnken, D. 1782. Homeri Hymnus in Cererem nunc primum editus,

accedunt duae epistolae criticae (Lugduni Batavorum).
Ruijgh, C. J. 1981. “L’emploi de - chez Homère et Hésiode.” Mne-
mosyne 34: 272–87.
Russo, C. F. 1965. Hesiodi Scutum (Florence).
Rutherford, I. 1997. “Odes and Ends: Closure in Greek Lyric.” In:
D. H. Roberts, F. M. Dunn, and D. Fowler (eds.), Classical Clo-
sure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton),
43–61.
—. 2010. “Canonizing the Pantheon: the Dodekatheon in Greek Re-
ligion and Its Origins.” In: J. N. Bremmer and A. Erskine (eds.),
The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations (Edin-
burgh), 43–54.
Rzach, A. 1876. Der Dialekt des Hesiodos (Lipsia).
Sacconi A. 1967. “Gli ideogrammi per la pelle e per il cuoio nei testi
micenei.” SMEA 3: 98–134.
Samuel, A. E. 1972. Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years
in Classical Antiquity (Munich).
Scanzo, R. 2002. “Un inno per Ermes: rilettura e postille eratosteniche
al "« pseudo-omerico.” Maia 54: 33–49.
Schachter, A. 1986. Cults of Boiotia vol. 2 (London).
Scheid-Tissinier, É. 2000. “Recevoir des dieux, donner aux dieux: as-
pects de la relation avec le divin dans la poésie grecque archaïque.”
RPh 74: 199–230.
Scheinberg, S. 1979. “The Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to
Hermes.” HSCPh 83: 1–28.
Schiappa, E. 1999. The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical
Greece (New Haven/London).
Schibli, H. S. 1990. Pherekydes of Syros (Oxford).
Schiffler, B. 1976. Die Typologie des Kentauren in der antiken Kunst vom
10. bis zum Ende des 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Frankfurt).
Schmid, W. and O. Stählin. 1934. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur
(München).
Schmidt, M. 1858–62. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Jena).
—. 1871. “Verbesserungsvorschläge zu schwierigen Stellen griechi-
scher Schriftsteller.” RhM 26: 161–73.
634 Bibliography
Schmitt, J. C. 1856. “Zur Kritik der homerischen Hymnen.” NJbPh 75:

143–61.
Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit
(Wiesbaden).
Schmitz, T. A. 2000. “Plausibility in the Greek Orators.” AJPh 121:
47–77.
Schneider, O. 1856. Nicandrea, Theriaca et Alexipharmaca (Lipsiae).
Schneidewin, F. W. 1848. “Anmerkungen zum Hymnus auf Hermes.”
Philologus 3: 659–700.
Schrader, L. 1958. Panurge und Hermes. Zum Ursprung eines Charak-
ters bei Rabelais (Bonn).
Schreckenberg, H. 1964. Ananke: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte eines
Wortgebrauchs (Munich).
Schulze, W. 1966. Kleine Schriften (Göttingen).
Schwabl, H. 1976. “Zeus nickt.” WS 10: 22–30.
Schwartz, E. 1894. “Die apollodorische Bibliothek.” RE I 2: 2875–86.
Schwyzer, E. 1923. “Deutungsversuche griechischer, besonders home-
rischer Wörter.” Glotta 12: 8–29.
Scodel, R. 1996. “Self-Correction, Spontaneity, and Orality in Archaic
Poetry.” In I. Worthington (ed.), Voice into Text. Orality and Litera-
cy in Ancient Greece (Leiden/New York/Cologne), 59–79.
—. 1998. “Bardic Performance and Oral Tradition in Homer.” AJPh
119: 171–94.
Scott, J. 1903. “The Vocative in Homer and Hesiod.” AJPh 24: 192–96.
Scully, S. P. 1981. “The Bard as the Custodian of Homeric Society:
Odyssey 3.263–272.” QUCC 8: 67–83.
Seaford, R. 1984. Euripides Cyclops (Oxford).
Seiler, M. A. 1997. P(!« 7!«. Alexandrinische Dichtung kata
lepton in strukturaler und humanethologischer Deutung: Kall. fr.
254–268 SH; Theokr. 1,32–54; Theokr. 7; Theokr. 11; ‘Theokr.’ 25
(Stuttgart).
Sens, A. 1997. Theocritus, Dioscuri (Idyll 22): Introduction, Text, and
Commentary (Göttingen).
—. 2011. Asclepiades of Samos. Edited with Translation and Commen-
tary (Oxford).
Bibliography 635
Shackle, R. J. 1915. “Some Emendations of the Homeric Hymns.” CR

29: 161–65.
—. 1920. “Further Notes on the Homeric Hymns.” CR 34: 99–101.
Shapiro, H. A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz).
Shelmerdine, S. C. 1981. “The Homeric Hymn to Hermes: A Commen-
tary (1–114) with Introduction.” (Diss. Michigan).
—. 1984. “Hermes and the Tortoise: A Prelude to Cult.” GRBS 25:
201–208.
—. 1986. “Odyssean Allusions to the Fourth Homeric Hymn.” TAPhA
116: 49–63.
Shipp, G. P. 21972. Studies in the Language of Homer (Cambridge).
Shook, L. K. 1958. “Old-English Riddle 28-Testudo (Tortoise-Lyre).”
Mediaeval Studies 20: 93–97.
Sick, D. H. 1996. “Cattle, Sacrifice, and the Sun: A Mythic Cycle in
Greece, Iran, and India.” (Diss. Univ. of Minnesota).
Sicking, C. M. J. and P. Stork. 1996. Two Studies in the Semantics of the
Verb in Classical Greek (Leiden).
Sifakis, G. M. 1979. “Children in Greek Tragedy.” BICS 26: 66–80.
Simon, E. 1953. Opfernde Götter (Berlin).
—. 1980. Die Götter der Griechen (München).
Sittl, K. 1890. Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Lipsia).
Slater, N. 2004. “Where are the Actors.” In: C. Hugoniot (ed.), Le statut
de l’acteur dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine (Tours), 143–60.
Slatkin, L. M. 1991. The Power of Thetis. Allusion and Interpretation in
the Iliad (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford).
Small, J. P. 1982. Cacus and Marsyas in Etrusco-Roman Legend (Prince-
ton).
Snell, B. 1993 (repr.) Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entste-
hung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen. (Göttingen).
Snyder, J. M. 1981. “The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and
the Lyric Poets.” CJ 76: 193–96.
Solmsen, F. 1901. Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre
(Strassburg).
Solomon, J. 1994. “Apollo and the Lyre.” In: J. Solomon (ed.), Apollo:
Origins and Influences (Tucson/London), 37–46.
636 Bibliography
Sommer, F. 1948. Zur Geschichte der griechischen Nominalkomposita

(Munich).
Sommerstein, A. H. 22001. Aristophanes, the Comedies; with Trans-
lation and Notes. Vol. 11, Wealth (Warminster).
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1991. “Reading” Greek Culture: Texts and
Images, Rituals and Myths (Oxford).
Sowa, C. A. 1984. Traditional Themes and the Homeric Hymns (Chi-
cago).
Spanoudakis, K. 2002. Philitas of Cos (Leiden/Boston).
Stadtmüller H. 1881. “Zur Kritik des homerischen Hymnus auf
Hermes.” JbClPh 123: 537–42, 809–15.
Steffen, V. 1960. φ )« #I/ (Warsaw).
Stehle, E. 1996. Performance and Gender in Ancient Greece: Nondra-
matic Poetry in Its Setting (Princeton).
Steiner, D. T. 1994. The Tyrant’s Writ. Myths and Images of Writing in
Ancient Greece (Princeton).
—. 1995. “Stoning and Sight: A Structural Equivalence in Greek
Mythology.” ClAnt 14: 193–211.
Stengel, P. 1910. Opferbräuche der Griechen (Lipsia).
—. 1920. Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Munich).
Stoddard K. 2004. The Narrative Voice in the Theogony of Hesiod
(Leiden/Boston).
Stoll, H. W. 1859. “Zu den homerischen Hymnen.” JbClPh 79: 318–22.
—. 1861. Animadversiones in Hymnos Homericos (Weilburg).
Stolz, F. 1903. “Beiträge zur griechischen, insbesondere homerischen
Wortzusammen-setzung und Wortbildung.” WS 25: 218–56.
Straßner, E. 21978. Schwank (Stuttgart).
Strömberg, R. 1937. Theophrastea. Studien zur botanischen Begriffsbil-
dung (Göteborg).
—. 1954. Greek Proverbs. A Collection of Proverbs and Proverbial
Phrases Which Are Not Listed by the Ancient and Byzantine Pa-
roemiographers (Götteborg).
Strolonga, P. (forthcoming). The Poetics of Reciprocity in the Major
Homeric Hymns.
Bibliography 637
Struck, P. T. 2004. Birth of the Symbol. Ancient Readers at the Limits of

their Texts (Princeton).
—. 2005. “Divination and Literary Criticism?” In: S. I. Johnston and
P. T. Struck (eds.), Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination (Leiden),
147–66.
Sturz, F. W. 1818. Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum et alia
grammaticorum scripta e codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum edita
(Lipsia).
Suárez de la Torre, E. 2000. “La noción de “daimon” en la literatura de
la Grecia arcaica y clásica.” In: G. C. Andreotti and A. P. Jiménez
(eds.), Seres intermedios: ángeles, demonios y genios en el mundo
mediterráneo (Malaga), 47–87.
Sütterlin, L. 1891. Zur Geschichte der verba denominativa im altgriechi-
schen, 2 vols. (Strassburg).
Sullivan, S. D. 1995. Psychological and Ethical Ideas. What Early
Greeks Say (Leiden/New York/Cologne).
Suter, A. 2005. “Beyond the Limits of Lyric: the Female Poet of the
Homeric Hymn to Demeter.” Kernos 18: 17–41.
Sutton, D. 1977. “The Greek Origins of the Cacus Myth.” CQ 27:
392–93.
—. 1980. The Greek Satyr Play (Meisenheim am Glan).
Syed, Y. 2004. “Ovid’s Use of the Hymnic Genre in the Metamor-
phoses.” In: A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke, and S. Stephens (eds.), Rituals
in Ink: A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient
Rome held at Stanford University in February 2002 (Munich),
99–113.
Szepes, E. 1980. “Humour in the Homeric Hermes Hymn.” Homonoia
2: 5–56.
Szemerényi, O. 1974. “The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente
Lux.” JHS 94: 144–57.
Taida, I. 2010. “Augment in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes.” Hermes
138: 250–58.
Taillardat, J.1982. “d)*(«, !« et foedus.” REG 95: 1–14.
Tate, J. 1927. “The Beginnings of Greek Allegory.” CR 41: 214–15.
—. 1929. “Plato and Allegorical Interpretation.” CQ 23: 142–54.
—. 1934. “On the History of Allegorism.” CQ 28: 105–14.
638 Bibliography
Terzaghi, N. 1913. Sofocle, I cercatori di traccie (Florence).

Teske, A. 1955. Die Homer-Mimesis in den homerischen Hymnen
(Greifswald).
Thalmann, W. G. 1984. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early
Greek Epic Poetry (Baltimore).
Theodoridis, Ch. 1982, 1998. Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, vol. 1 A – :,
vol. 2 E – M (Berlin).
Thomas, F. W. 1895. “-( and 7 in Homer.” JPh 23: 81–115.
Thomas, O. R. H. “Bibliography on the Homeric Hymn to Hermes” ac-
cessible at people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/orht3/Bibliography.htm.
—. 2007. “Charting the Atlantic with Hesiod and Hellanicus.” ZPE
160: 15–23.
—. 2009. “A Commentary on the Homeric Hymn to Hermes 184–396.”
(Diss. Oxford).
—. 2010. “Ancient Greek Awareness of Child Language Acquisition.”
Glotta 86: 185–223.
—. 2011. “The Homeric Hymn to Pan.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.), The
Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays (Oxford), 151–72.
Thomas, R. 1891. “Zur historischen Entwicklung der Metapher im
Griechischen” (Diss. Erlangen).
Thompson, W. E. 1965a “The Early Parthenon Inventories.” AJA 69:
223–30.
—. 1965b. “The Hekatompedon Inventories 414/3–411/0.” Hesperia
34: 298–309.
Thumb, A. 21959. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Heidelberg).
Tichy, E. 1983. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen
(Wien).
Timmerman, D. M. and E. Schiappa. 2010. Classical Greek Rhetorical
Theory and the Disciplining of Discourse (Cambridge).
Tittmann, I. A. G. 1808. Ioannis Zonarae Lexicon (Lipsiae).
Toohey, P. 1994. “Epic and Rhetoric.” In: I. Worthington (ed.), Persua-
sion: Greek Rhetoric in Action (London/New York, 1994), 153–75.
Trask, R. L. 1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics
(London).
Treu, M. 1889. “Griechische Sprichwörter.” Philologus 47: 193–201.
Bibliography 639
Treu, M. 1968. Von Homer zur Lyrik (Munich).

Tsagalis, C. C. 2003. “The Homeric Formula nuktos amolgoi.” C&M
54: 5–40.
Turkeltaub, D. W. 2003. “The God’s Radiance Manifest. An Examin-
ation of the Narrative Pattern Underlying the Homeric Divine
Epiphany Scenes.” (PhD Diss. Cornell University).
Tyrrell, R. Y. 1894. “Note on the Homeric Hymn to Hermes v. 33.” CR
8: 398.
Tzifopoulos, Y. Z. 2000. “Hermes and Apollo at Onchestos in the
Homeric Hymn to Hermes: the Poetics and Performance of Pro-
verbial Communication.” Mnemosyne 53: 148–63.
Usener, H. 1903. “Dreiheit.” RhM 58: 1–47, 161–208, 321–62.
—. 1965. Kleine Schriften (Osnabrück).
Ussher, R. G. 1973. Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae. Edited with Introduc-
tion and Commentary (Oxford).
Vamvouri-Ruffy, M. 2004. La fabrique du divin. Les Hymnes de Calli-
maque à la lumière des Hymnes homériques et des Hymnes épigrap-
hiques (Liège).
Van den Berg, R. M. 2001. Proclus’ Hymns. Essays, Translations, Com-
mentary (Leiden/Boston/Cologne).
Van der Valk, M. H. A. L. H. 1942. “Zum Worte Ρ!«.” Mnemosyne
10: 113–40.
—. 1951. “Quelques remarques sur le sens de hosia.” REG 64: 417–22.
—. 1958. “On Apollodori Bibliotheca.” REG 71: 100–168.
—. 1964. Researches in the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (Leiden).
Van der Weiden, M. J. 1991. The Dithyrambs of Pindar: Introduction,
Text, and Commentary (Amsterdam).
Van Dieten, J. A. 1975. Nicetae Choniatae historia (Berlin).
Van Groningen, B. A. 1953. “La poésie verbale grecque.” MKNAW 16:
171–271.
—. 1958. La composition littéraire archaïque grecque; procédés et réal-
isations (Amsterdam).
Van Herwerden, J. 1876. Quaestiunculae epicae et elegiacae (Traiecti a.
Rh.).
640 Bibliography
Van Herwerden, J. 1878. “Observationes criticae. I. In Homerum, II. In

Xenophontis Cyropaediam.” RPh. 2: 195–203.
—. 1888. “Ad hymnum in Mercurium.” RhM 43: 73–85.
—. 1907. “Forma antiquissima hymni homerici in Mercurium.” Mne-
mosyne 35: 181–91.
Van Hoorn, G. 1909. De vita atque cultu puerorum monumentis antiquis
explanato (Amsterdam).
Van Leeuwen, J. 1894. Enchiridium dictionis epicae (Lugduni Batavo-
rum).
Van Nortwick, T. 1975. “The Homeric Hymn to Hermes. A Study in
Early Greek Hexameter Style.” (Diss. Stanford).
—. 1980. “Apollonos apate: Associative Imagery in the Homeric Hymn
to Hermes 227–92.” CW 74: 1–5.
Van Straten, F. 1995. Hiera Kala. Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic
and Classical Greece (Leiden/New York/Cologne).
Van Thiel, H. 2000. Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manu scrip-
tos, proecdosis (http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/volltexte/2006/1810/
pdf/Scholia_D_Gesamt.pdf).
Veh, O. 1977. Prokop, Bd. 5: Bauten. Paulus Silentiarius, Descriptio
Sanctae Sophiae (München).
Verdenius, W. J. 1945. “A@« bei Homer.” Mnemosyne 12: 47–60.
—. 1953. “The Metaphorical Sense of 1«.” Mnemosyne 6: 115.
—. 1960. “L’association des idées comme principe de composition
dans Homère, Hésiode, Theognis.” REG 73: 345–61.
—. 1962. “ρ«.” Mnemosyne 15: 389.
—. 1985. A Commentary on Hesiod: Works and Days, vv. 1–382
(Leiden).
Vergados, A. 2007a. “The Homeric Hymn to Hermes 51 and Antigonus
of Carystus.” CQ 57: 737–42.
—. 2007b. “A Commentary on the Homeric Hymn to Hermes” (Diss.
University of Virginia).
—. 2010. “Hesiod, Hellanikos und Hermes (zu ZPE 160 (2007),
15–23).” ZPE 175: 20–21.
—. 2011a “Shifting Focalization in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes: the
Case of Hermes’ Cave.” GRBS 51: 1–25.
Bibliography 641
Vergados, A. 2011b. “The Homeric Hymn to Hermes: Humour and

Epiphany.” In: A. Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpre-
tative Essays (Oxford), 82–104.
—. (2012). “Hesychius, s.v. ! 1« (! 1933).” Glotta 88: 224–31.
Vetta, M. 2003. “L’epos di Pilo e Omero. Breve storia di una saga
regionale.” In: R. Nicolai (ed.), }YMO. Studi di poesia, metrica
e musica greca offerti dagli allievi a Luigi Enrico Rossi per i suoi set-
tant’anni (Rome), 13–33.
Vian, F. 1987. Les Argonautiques Orphiques (Paris).
Vine, B. 1999. “On ‘Cowgill’s Law’ in Greek.” In: H. C. Luschnützky
and H. Eichner (eds.), Compositiones indogermanicae in memoriam
Jochem Schindler (Prague), 555–600.
Viré, G. 1992. Hygini de Astronomia (Stuttgart/Lipsia).
Voigt, C. 1972. Überlegung und Entscheidung (Maisenheim am Glan).
Voigt, E.-M. 1971. Sappho et Alcaeus (Amsterdam).
Von Erffa, C. E. Frhr. 1937. AI: und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Ent-
wicklung von Homer bis Demokrit (Lipsia).
Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 1927. “Heilige Gesetze. Eine Ur-
kunde aus Kyrene.” Sitzungsberiche der preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 19: 155–76.
—. 1984 (repr.) Der Glaube der Hellenen (Darmstadt).
Voss, J. H. 1827. Mythologische Briefe (Stuttgart).
Vox, O. 1981. “Apollo irato nell’inno ad Ermes.” Prometheus 7: 108–14.
—. 1998. “Sull’anonimo panegirico per Theon (POxy 1015).” In:
M. Capasso (ed.), Da Ercolano all’Egitto. Ricerche varie di papiro-
logia (Lecce), 187–91.
Waanders, F. M. J. 1983. The History of )« and ) in Ancient
Greek (Amsterdam).
Wachter, R. 2001. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions (Oxford).
Wackernagel, J. 1889. Das Dehnungsgesetz der griechischen Composita
(Basel).
—. 1916. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen).
—. 1950–57 (repr.) Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berück-
sichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, 2 vols. (Basel).
—. 1969. Kleine Schriften, vol. 2 (Göttingen).
642 Bibliography
Wagler. 1896. “$!φ*)«.” RE II 2: 1730–33.

Wagner, R. 1965. Mythographi Graeci, vol. 1 (Stuttgart).
Wahrmann, P. 1924. “Homer μ« $)) .” Glotta 13: 98–101.
Walcot, P. 1979. “Cattle Raiding, Heroic Tradition, and Ritual: The
Greek Evidence.” HR 18: 326–51.
Wallace, R. 1989. “R «.” TAPhA 119: 201–207.
Walsh, G. B. 1984. The Varieties of Enchantment. Early Greek Views of
the Nature and Function of Poetry (Chapell Hill).
Wankel, H. 1976. Demosthenes, Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz
(Heidelberg).
Wardle, D. 2006. Cicero on Divination: De Divinatione 1. Translated
with Introduction and Historical Commentary (Oxford).
Warmington, E. H. 1936. Remains of Old Latin II: Livius Andronicus,
Naevius, Pacuvius and Accius (London).
Waszink, J. H. 1974. Biene und Honig als Symbol des Dichters und der
Dichtung in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Opladen).
Wartelle, A. 2000. “Brèves remarques de vocabulaire grec.” REG 113:
211–19.
Watkins, C. 1970. “Studies in Indo-European Legal Language, Institu-
tions, and Mythology.” In: G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigswald,
and A. Senn (eds.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Papers
Presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), 321–54.
—. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon (Oxford).
Wehrli, F. 1957. Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes (Basel).
Weiher, A. 31970. Homerische Hymnen, griechisch und deutsch herausge-
geben (München).
Weinreich, O. 1937. “Zwölfgötter.” In: W. H. Röscher (ed.), Ausführ-
liches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Lipsia/
Berlin), 764–848.
Weiss, M. 1998. “Erotica: on the Prehistory of Greek Desire.” HSCPh
98: 31–61.
Welcker, F. G. 1857. Griechische Götterlehre, 2 vols. (Göttingen).
Wendel, C. 1935. “Mythographie.” RE XVI 2: 1352–74.
Bibliography 643
West, M. L. 1962. “Further Notes on the Text of Hesiod.” CQ 12:

177–81.
—. 1966a. Hesiod Theogony, Edited with Prolegomena and Commen-
tary (Oxford).
—. 1966b. “Conjectures on 46 Greek Poets.” Philologus 110: 147–68.
—. 1967. “Epica.” Glotta 44: 135–48.
—. 1969. “Echoes and Imitations of the Hesiodic Poems.” Philologus
113: 1–9.
—. 1970. “The Eighth Homeric Hymn and Proclus.” CQ 20: 300–304.
—. 1971. “Stesichorus.” CQ 21: 302–14.
—. 1973. Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek
and Latin Texts (Stuttgart).
—. 1978. Hesiod Works and Days. Edited with Prolegomena and Com-
mentary (Oxford).
—. 1981. “Is the ‘Works and Days’ an Oral Poem?” In: C. Brillante,
M. Cantilena and C. O. Pavese (eds.), I poemi epici rapsodici non
omerici. Atti del convegno di Venezia, 28–30 settembre 1977
(Padua), 53–67.
—. 1982. Greek Metre (Oxford).
—. 1992. Ancient Greek Music (Oxford).
—. 1997. “Homer’s Meter.” In: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New
Companion to Homer (Leiden/New York/Cologne), 218–37.
—. 1998, 2000. Homeri Ilias, 2 vols. (Stuttgart/Lipsia).
—. 2001. “The Fragmentary Hymn to Dionysus.” ZPE 134: 1–11.
—. 2003a. Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer,
Edited and Translated, (Cambridge, Mass./London).
—. 2003b “Some Problems in Early Epic Texts.” In: D. Accorinti
and Pi. Chuvin (eds.), Des Géants à Dionysos. Mélanges de mythol-
ogie et de poésie grecques offerts à Francis Vian (Alexandria),
147–54.
—. 2007. Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford).
—. 2008. “The Hesiod Papyri and the Archaic Epic Language.” In:
G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (eds.), Esiodo, cent’anni di papiri.
Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze, 7–8 giugno 2007
(Florence), 29–42.
644 Bibliography
West, S. 1967. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Cologne).

Wheeler, B. I. 1885. Der griechische Nominalaccent (Strassburg).
Wheeler, E. L. 1984. “Sophistic Interpretations and Greek Treaties.”
GRBS 25: 253–74.
White, H. 2002. “Notes on Greek Lexicography.” Myrtia 17: 327–30.
White, J. J. 2001. “The Semiotics of the mise-en-abyme.” In: O. Fischer
and M. Nänny (eds.), The Motivated Sign. Iconicity in Language
and Literature 2 (Amsterdam/Philadelphia), 29–54.
Willcock, M. 2000. “The aegis of Zeus.” In: M. Cannatà Fera and
S. Grandolini (eds.), Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore di
G. Aurelio Privitera, vol. 2 (Perugia), 693–98.
Williams, F. 1978. Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo, A Commentary. (Ox-
ford).
Wimmel, W. 1971. “Quisquis et occurret, ne possit crimen habere, stet
procul … (Zu Tibull I, 6, 41/42).” Hermes 99: 156–63.
Windisch, G. 1867. De hymnis homericis maioribus (Lipsia).
Wolf, F. A. 1825. Homeri carmina, secundum recensionem Wolfii cum
praefatione Godofredi Hermanni (Lipsia).
Wrede, H. 1985. Die antike Herme (Mainz).
Wyatt, W. F. Jr. 1969. Metrical Lengthening in Homer (Rome).
—. 1992. “Homeric Hiatus.” Glotta 70: 20–30.
Wyss, B. 1936. Antimachi Colophonii reliquiae (Berlin).
Yalouris, N. (= f)1 («, N.) 1953–4. “E
« " )5.” AE 92–93:
162–84.
—. 1967. “P1)« *«.” MDAI 82: 68–71.
Yavis, C. G. 1949. Greek Altars. Origins and Typology Including the
Minoan-Mycenaean Offertory Apparatus (St. Louis).
Yunis, H. 2011. Plato Phaedrus (Cambridge).
Zacco, A. 1996. “Sull’uso di $()« nel racconto omerico e nelle
Argonautiche di Apollonio Rodio.” Aevum(ant) 9: 151–75.
Zanetto, G. 1996. Inni Omerici (Milan).
Zanker, G. 1996. “Pictorial Description as a Supplement for Narrative:
the Labour of Augeas’ Stables in Heracles Leontophonos.” AJPh
117: 411–23.
Bibliography 645
Zanker, P. 1965. Wandel der Hermesgestalt in der attischen Vasenmalerei

(Bonn).
Zografou, A. 2010. Chemins d’Hécate. Portes, routes, carrefours et
autres figures de l’entre-deux (Liège).
Zschätzsch, A. 2002. Verwendung und Bedeutung griechischer Musik-
instrumente in Mythos und Kult (Rahden).
646 Bibliography
Illustrations 647
Illustrations
648 Illustrations
Fig. 1a: Map of Greece indicating Hermes’ journeys.

→ ⎯ → ⎯ → ⎯ : from Mt Cyllene to Pieria, 70–4.
→⎯→⎯→⎯ : from Pieria to Onchestos, 87–93; to Alpheios, 95–141
(arrival at Alpheios 101–2); and to Mt Cyllene, 142–320.
Illustrations 649
Fig. 1b: Map of Greece indicating Hermes and Apollo’s journeys

→ ⎯ → ⎯ → ⎯ : from Mt Cyllene to Mt Olympus, 320–96;
→⎯→⎯→⎯ : from Mt Olympus to Pylos and Alpheios, 397–504;
and back to Mt Olympus, 505–78
Maps © Daniel Dalet

Source: http://www.d-maps.com/carte.php?lib=greece_map&num_car=2272& lang=en.
650 Illustrations
2a
2b
Figs. 2 a–d: Cylix from Vulci, Vatican, Mus. Greg. Etr.
(LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 242a); 480–70 BC, the Brygos Painter.
Source: Yalouris (1953–54) 177–78.
Illustrations 651
2c
2d
652 Illustrations
Fig. 3: Caeretan Hydria,

Louvre E 702 (LIMC, s.v.
Hermes, no. 241); ca. 530–525
BC. Hermes (in the cradle),
Maia, Zeus (?), and Apollo;
on the left Apollo’s cattle
are visible, but it is unclear
whether they are hidden in
a different cave.
© Musée du Louvre / Pierre et
Maurice Chuzeville.
Figs. 4 a–b: Neck amphora, New York, Metropolitan Museum GR 529

(X 21.17; LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 247); end of 6th- beginning of 5th c. BC, the Red-Line Painter.
© bpk / The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Illustrations 653
Fig. 5: Cylix from Vulci, London, British Museum E 815

(LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 248); 510–500 BC, the Nicosthenes painter.
© The Trustees of the British Museum
Fig. 6: Corinthian Crater from Etruria (detail), Louvre E 633; first quarter of 7th c. BC.
© 1999 Musée du Louvre / Patrick Lebaube.
654 Illustrations
Fig. 7: Fragment of an Attic crater from Selinous(?), Bern private collection

(LIMC, s.v. Hermes 242b); 440–30 BC.
Source: Blatter (1971) 128, pl. 40, 1a-b / photo: Dr. P. Rohner
Fig. 8: Amphora (detail), New York, Metropolitan Museum 70.286.78

(LIMC, s.v. Hermes, no. 247), ca. 490 BC, the Eucharides Painter.
© bpk / The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Illustrations 655
Fig. 9a: Tortoise-shell, Museum of Arta,

no. 1179; second half of 5th c. BC.
Source: Faklaris (1977) plate 79a.
Fig. 9b: Tortoise-shell from Bassai, now at Athens, National Museum

(O.76.9); 5th c. BC (?)
Source: Faklaris (1977) plate 77a.
656
Index Rerum 657
Index Rerum
Abstract nouns: 297 Anaphora: 351, 374, 383, 385, 400, 416,
Absurd: 30, 33, 34, 426–28, 446, 448 520, 522
Accumulation of epithets: 378, 537; see Anastrophe: 267
also Cascade (of characterizations) Anchises: 14, 439
Accumulation of temporal markers: 337 Anthropomorphism: 88 n. 20, 246, 350,
Accusatives in -«, -˘ «: 317 372, 377, 537, 573
Admetus: 96, 107 n. 62, 116, 131 n. 7, 300, Anti-deceit clauses: 47, 487–88
315, 418 Antigonus of Carystus: 88 n. 21, 113,
Adynaton: 30 269–70
Adyton: 47, 415–16 Antimachus: 111–12
Aetiology, Aition: 69, 89 n. 27, 102, 105, Antoninus Liberalis: 77 n. 4, 96, 101–102,
126, 244, 269, 298, 337, 439, 550 107 n. 62, 108, 298, 300, 314, 315, 316,
Agkōn: see Arms 494
Aidōs: 360, 413 Aorist: 286, 316, 387, 436
Ainos: 8 reduplicated: 332–33 (tetorēsas), 351
Aiōn: 262–63, 333 (lelakonto), 577
Akroamata: 152 (n. 88) ingressive: 549
Alcaeus: 11, 27, 30, 76–77, 96, 99 n. 45, mixed: 312
100, 101, 104, 108, 130, 133, 147, 251, ‘Apolline partisan’: 37
553, 586 ‘Apolline revisionist’: 547, 562, 574
Allegoresis (defensive): 21 Apollo and the Muses: 511, 523
Allegory: 21 n. 53, 22 Apollo’s greed: 460, 543, 566
Alliteration: 24, 294, 324, 331, 383, 388, (ps.-)Apollodorus: 93–97, 104, 384,
536, 536, 563, 576, 579 488–89, 568
Alpheios: 6 n. 10, 34, 35, 67 n. 68, 69, 136, Apollonius Rhodius: 113–17
137, 149, 152, 251, 280, 308–309, 314, Apologoi: 8, 23 n. 59, 65
326–28, 348, 352, 398, 458, 482, 490 Aphrodite: 11 n. 25, 14, 29, 91, 115, 239,
Alphitomancy: 572 255, 293, 447, 489, 565
Altar: 132 (n. 12), 152, 329, 331, 335, 349, Aratus: 86–87, 88 n. 21, 108, 263
567 Archilochus: 27, 241, 372
of Twelve Gods: 136 Arcadia: 35, 89, 92, 100, 102, 106 n. 62,
shared by Hermes and Apollo:149, 325, 111, 153, 219, 220, 221, 244
339 Arcadian (dialect forms): 317, 419
Ambiguity: 16, 22–25, 38, 233, 366, 476, Aretalogy: 252
480, 484, 529, 540, 547, 572, 573, Arms (of the lyre): 88, 98, 258–59, 266–69
582 Arrival scene: 300–301, 377
Amnion: 335 Artemis: 23 n. 60, 118, 219, 272, 482–83,
Anabolē: 506–507 569
Anacoluthon: 392 Asphodel: 292, 399–400, 402
Anadiplosis: 426, 478 Asclepius: 116, 418
658 Index Rerum
Associative logic: 229 Cacus: 284, 403, 424

Asyndeton: 48, 91, 292, 356, 425, 473, 526, Caduceus: 89 n. 24, 98, 100 n. 48, 146, 147,
532, 539 221, 458, 551, 558–60
epexegetic: 237, 321, 364, 372, 439, 534, Caesurae: 58–59, 60, 62, 63 n. 49, 64, 412,
552 489, 521
Athyrma: 240, 254–55, 326 Callimachus: 117–19, 120, 121, 236, 237,
Atlantids: 31, 90, 92–93, 104 408
Atticisms: 45–46, 148, 268, 290, 478, 488 Carapace: 86, 88, 103, 258, 274
Audience expectations: 25 n. 65, 31, 221, Cascade (of characterizations): 110, 228
288, 403, 404, 412, 483, 546 Cattle of the Sun: 66–67, 287–88, 343, 385
Audience, external: 11, 14, 271, 272, 514 Cattle-theft: 32, 107–108, 110, 125, 126,
internal: 14, 238 136 n. 33, 137 n. 35, 150, 151, 153, 235,
Aulos: 72, 98, 104 n. 58, 262–63, 524, 525, 237, 243, 268, 283–84, 287, 300, 302,
538, 541, 542 308, 316, 367, 437, 452, 459, 547
Autodidaktos: 518 in Crete: 285–86
Autolycus: 65–66, 233, 257, 374, 429, 452 Cave(s): 225–26, 243–44, 278–79, 351–52,
Autoschediē: 4, 73–75, 272, 275 403, 406–407, 414–15
Centaurs: 38, 131, 400, 401–402
Baby talk: 23 Cento: 228
Bafflement: 79–80, 83, 398, 404, 466, 494; Charis: 582, 586; see also Reciprocity
see also Wonderment Chelōnē (nymph): 256
Banquet: 7, 11, 13, 25, 34, 152, 249, 250, Chelydorea (Mt.): 105, 151, 244
272, 276, 515, 525, 526, 530; see also Chelys; 33, 88 n. 20, 131 n. 7, 134 n. 27,
Symposion 246, 248, 258–59, 530, 537, 586; see
Bantering: 34, 276 also Lyre
Bardic performances: 7–8 Chiasmus: 237, 291, 294, 368, 383, 448,
Batēr: 259 563
Bathos: 31, 32 Childhood: 86, 89, 91, 220, 573
Battou Skopiai: 101–102, 298 precocious: 29–30, 35 n. 15, 117, 231,
Battus: 11, 79, 101–103, 298, 300, 306, 381 233, 286
Bees: 17, 568–70, 573, 574, 575, 577 Childishness (affected): 23–24, 25, 253,
Bee-maidens: 18–19, 72, 540, 560, 569 413, 423, 426, 428
Bee-oracle: 17, 95, 149, 284, 508, 530, Chisel: 87, 136 n. 35, 258, 262, 333
566–70, 573, 574, 577 Chordotonon: 259
Bee-woman (metal plates): 569 Citharody: 134, 216, 269, 525
Behaghel’s Law: 424 Comedy: 27, 29–30, 34, 36–37, 38 n. 23, 41,
Binding (a god): 495–96 81, 132, 133, 286, 359, 372, 374, 381,
Bird as messenger: 351, 396–97, 404, 468, 403, 517; see also Humour
564, 565 of innocence: 261
Blood: 323, 326, 335 Comic deflation: 31, 34, 35, 36, 395, 441,
Blood sausage: 336 483; see also Bathos
Boeotia: 71, 90, 112, 128, 136, 143, 148, Commerce: 136, 554; see also Merchant(s)
149, 150, 232, 238, 301, 302, 317, 477, Consonance: 270
570 Constellation(s): 87, 92
Bothros: 323, 325 Coppia contigua (in Hesychius): 338–39
Bouphonia: 514 Corax: 138, 140, 423
Bow: 11, 30, 72, 99, 104, 552–53 Cornell-Cherry: 528
Bull: 103, 107, 288, 332, 386, 401 n. 13, Correptio attica: 63
495, 543 Correptio epica: 63
Index Rerum 659
Corycian cave/nymphs: 568–69 Doublets: 48–49, 314, 360, 579
Coryphasion, Mt.: 101, 316 Droste effect: 9
Court: 24, 29, 66, 138, 429
Courtesan: 140–41, 537; see also Hetaira Eagle: 440, 471
Cows as souls of dead: 240, 241, 300, Echo: 111 (n. 68)
399–400 Eikos: see Probability (argument from)
as currency: 495, 515–16 Eirōn: 424, 433
Cow-hide(s): 16, 315, 337, 492 Elision: 64, 344, 357, 488, 535
Cow tracks: 79, 80, 81, 283, 291–92, 464 Endexia erga: 12, 526
Cradle: 86, 240, 242, 243, 356, 358, 412, Enjambement: 23, 31, 61–62, 126, 296,
417, 434, 438, 445 375, 384, 386, 420, 427, 457
Crasis: 64, 371, 488 Epicae laudes: 240
Crisis (on Olympus): 28, 230 Epiklēsis: 228, 242; see also Cult-epithet(s)
Croesus: 135, 142 Epilogue: 138, 140 n. 46, 474, 485,
Crossbar: 269 Epiphany: 26, 142 n. 54, 281, 463, 583
Cult-epithet(s): 86, 232, 235, 496, 528, 559 Epithet motivated by context: 49, 51, 123,
Cyclopes: 116, 315, 418, 421 289, 310, 498
Cyllene (Mt.): 35, 76, 79, 90, 92–93, 94, 99, proleptic: 221, 222, 228, 234, 289, 449,
105, 111, 112, 151, 219, 220, 225, 244, 458
255, 287, 309, 324, 350, 397 Eratosthenes: 32, 88–92, 104 n. 59, 292
Cyllene (nymph): 81–82, 84, 95 n. 37, 96, Erōs: 115, 255, 565
100, 219, 412, 426 Erotic vocabulary describing music: 248,
499, 513, 530
Dais: 35, 113, 314, 327, 341, 458, 571 Etymological pun/wordplay: 249, 282,
Dative (ethical): 464 468, 487, 510
Days (numeration): 238–39 Euphemism: 373, 436, 553
Deception: 15 n. 34, 22–25, 37, 69, 84, 291, Exchange: 8, 15, 38, 47, 72, 94, 95, 99, 104,
359, 451, 565, 581 106, 121, 127, 131 n. 7, 137, 237, 241,
Deceit: 25, 282, 443, 487–88, 528, 539, 547, 250, 283, 285, 298, 484–85, 495, 498,
582 516–17, 525, 531, 544–45, 549, 553
Dedicatory epigrams: 539, 586 Exereeinein: 13, 25, 539–40, 417
Delphi: 18, 70, 130, 135–36, 142 n. 56, 149, Extemporizing: see Autoschediē
150–51, 152, 374, 407, 460, 560, 564, Eyes: 33, 263, 265–66, 386, 432, 433,
566, 568, 570, 573 500–502
Delphic oracle (operation): 564, 568
Demeter: 14, 28, 224, 351, 388 Fable: 20, 256
Didymarchus: 101 Fairy-tale: 309, 350, 351–52, 416
Digamma: 63 n. 50, 64, 133, 143–44, 266, False archaism: 143
305, 333, 437, 479 False closure: 546; see also Double closure
Dionysus: 11, 220, 242, 248, 343, 457, 496, Fart: 36, 434, 441–42, 443
524, 525, 553, 556, 575, 584 Feast: 23, 113, 114, 126, 140–41 n. 49, 252,
Discontinuous narrative: 17 n. 38, 24 276, 325–28, 340, 347, 525, 526, 538;
Dithyramb: 216, 506, 507 see also Dais
Divination: 15, 19–20, 37, 72, 95, 104, Festival: 38, 150–51, 281, 327, 340, 575,
229–30, 535, 546, 560–70, 572, 574, 583
577 Figura etymologica: 278, 391, 543, 566; see
Donax: 259, 267 also Etymological pun/wordplay
Double beginning: 271 Fire: 16, 36, 69, 116, 318–31, 339, 347, 348,
Double closure: 548 349, 354, 409, 469–70, 501–502, 578
660 Index Rerum
Fire-sticks: 38, 69, 90, 100, 115, 126, 223, Heracles: 35 n. 15, 48, 55, 119–23, 239,
236, 246, 319–21, 322, 324, 325, 367, 284, 300, 314, 325, 375, 403, 470, 515,
531 556
Folk-tale: 396, 470 Heraclitus: 21
Food: 18, 34, 330, 339, 342, 387, 416, 426, Herald: 78, 216, 221, 335, 336, 458, 464,
455, 576 508, 510, 546, 559, 579
Footprints: 15, 66, 69, 80, 131, 283, 287, Herm: 148, 239, 247, 483, 558
384, 394, 395, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, Herm-carvers: 136–37 n. 35
404, 459, 463, 467, 468 Hermaia (festival)
Formulaic doublets: 48–49, 314, 360, 579 Hermaion: 23, 245, 570, 582
Formulaic precedent: 36, 57, 58–59, 453, Hermaios/Hermaiōn (month): 238–39
456, 475, 498 Hermann’s law: 59, 63, 64,
Fragrance (divine): 35, 281, 403, 405–406, Hermēneus: 22 n. 58
408, 453 Hermes as bard: 4, 7, 32, 65, 431, 514, 518,
Future, performative: 558, 586 526, 533
as conveyor: 578
Galingale: 318 as fertility god: 294
Geras: 6, 327, 340–41, 510, 579 as infant: 7, 16, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35
Geryon: 284, 300, 314, 405, n. 15, 48, 69–71, 80, 81 n. 11, 82, 98,
Gesture: 146, 248, 472–73, 475, 476 104, 108, 109, 127, 133, 137 n. 35, 140,
Giseke’s law: 60 142, 234, 243, 254, 280, 299, 301, 326,
Glottochronology: 142–45 359, 372, 395, 417, 425, 426, 434, 444,
Glyphanon: see Chisel 457, 458, 459, 460, 472, 485, 493, 530,
Gnōmai: 389, 533; see also Proverbial 533, 535
phrases as thief: 29, 78, 93, 107, 108, 119, 137 n.
God’s arrival on Olympus: 111, 126, 240, 35, 147, 229, 233, 236, 367, 425, 501
452, 546 compared to Odysseus: 65–66, 148–49,
Golden Age: 400, 571 232–33, 360, 364, 376, 451
Golden implements (divine): 31, 53, 71, compared to Prometheus: 68–69, 291,
242, 361, 456, 559 413
staff/wand: 95, 104, 146, 393, 558, 560, enacting his functions: 251, 329, 430,
562, 568 443, 452, 458, 526, 553
Growth (rapid bodily-): 82, 237, 478, 494, roasting meat on altar: 329
496 akakēta/akakēsios: 244
Gymnasiarch: 105, 150 agoraios: 553, 554
Argeiphontes: 35, 55, 123, 289, 296, 433,
Hades: 99, 300, 369, 393, 397, 418, 546, 440, 485, 500
578, 580, 581 charidōtēs: 38, 338
Haimation: 336 charmophrōn: 338
Helios: 66, 67, 286–89, 309, 311, 312, 355, chthonios: 223
360, 388, 480, 481, 585; see also Sun diaktoros: 86, 127, 249, 422, 443, 452,
Hellanicus: 78, 134 n. 25, 137 n. 35, 215, 487
282 dolios: 282
‘Hellenistic footnote’: 102 n. 55, 533 einodios: 120, 232, 290
Helper figures: 299–300 empolaios: 553
Hendiadys: 322, 493 enagōnios: 107
Hephaestus: 29, 54, 66 n. 63, 97–100, 236, epimēlios: 221
268, 272, 312, 322, 324, 329–30, 354, eriounios: 86, 222–23, 249
364, 387, 397, 478, 515, 526 euskopos: 86, 123, 289
Index Rerum 661
hagētōr: 487 Hilberg’s law: 60
hēgemonios: 232, 487, 529 Hipparchus: 136
katochos: 223, 496 Hoeing (of vines): 301, 303
kerdōios: 553, 558 Homoeoarcton: 348, 398
kranaios: 294, 528 Homoeoteleuton: 279, 334, 362, 363
ktēnitēs: 221 Honey: 17, 19, 471, 560, 566, 569, 570, 572,
kydimos: 56, 68, 266, 296, 356, 417, 574–77
492 Hosios: 341, 345, 370–71
kyllēnios: 220, 235, 444 Humanization of gods: 563; see also An-
kynanchēs; 351, 386 thropomorphism
nekyagōgos: 578 Humour: 26–39, 41, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 74,
nomios: 86, 543 98, 111 n. 69, 115, 117, 137, 142, 224,
pompaios: 232, 487 229, 239, 253, 256, 301, 314, 321, 328,
pompos: 232, 487 330, 344, 359, 396, 408, 410, 413, 425,
propylaios: 235, 483 426, 431, 432, 439–40, 442, 443, 445,
psychagōgos: 578 446, 454, 459, 476, 480, 485, 517, 532,
psychopompos: 235, 284, 354, 422, 534, 548
578 Hyginus: 91–93, 108
pylaios: 235, 483 Hymenaeus: 101–102
pylios: 235 Hymn, inset: 4, 10, 34, 110–11
strophaios: 235 Hymnos: 217–18
stropheus: 235 Hymns, opening formula: 4, 76–77,
tetraglōchin: 239 110–11, 215, 216, 217, 219, 221, 277,
tetrakephalos: 239 509
thyraios: 235 passage formula: 583–84, 586
trikephalos: 239 Hypotaxis: 25
Hermes’ audience: 7–8, 12, 237–38,
‘identity crisis’: 4–5, 9, 34, 245, 271, Ichneutae: 26, 52, 79–86, 95 n. 37, 148, 219,
280–81, 328 291, 412, 424, 425, 426
focus while singing: 6–7 Identification (of poet with Hermes): 14,
parents: 5, 10, 76, 93, 214, 218–19, 223, 271, 539
229, 271 Imperfect, conative: 439
theogony: 5–8, 12–13, 17–18, 73–74, 77, inchoative: 551
113 n. 75, 218, 431, 498, 510–12, 525, Improvisation: 283, 294, 297, 334, 518,
546 576; see also Autoschediē
song as precedent for poet’s own: 10–11, Incongruity: 27, 34, 127, 278, 315, 330,
271 370, 451
Hero-cult: 323 Indirect to direct speech: 556
Hesiod: 5, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 28, 31, 33, Indo-European: 226, 278, 286, 508, 546,
40–43, 52, 54–55, 57, 67–70, 74 n. 81, 553, 563
75, 98 n. 7, 96, 101–102, 256, 498–99, Infinitive, imperatival: 298, 305, 580
509, 520, 574, 584 Initiation: 8 n. 19, 150, 152, 286, 520,
Hetaira: 13, 18, 25, 33, 85 n. 17, 88 n. 20, 574
140, 246, 248, 252, 515, 530, 537, 540, Inside vs. outside: 24, 225, 256
541; see also Courtesan Invention: 77, 81 n. 10, 86, 88, 90, 94, 103,
Hetairia: 277 104 n. 58, 126, 134, 146, 223, 240, 246,
Hiatus: 62–63, 133, 144, 238, 258, 293, 305, 279, 320–21, 330, 551, 552
321, 323, 338, 383, 420, 479, 521, 574 Inventiveness: 236, 283
Hieros: 341, 345, 417 Invocation: 32, 107, 218, 228, 251, 512, 584
662 Index Rerum
Irony: 107, 115, 120, 122, 133 n. 19, 255, Liknon: see Cradle
256, 258, 289, 299, 348, 366, 378, 381 Literacy, literate: 61, 73–75
n. 11, 386, 392, 417, 418, 422, 435, 455, Litotes: 436, 581
460, 487, 492, 493, 530, 532, 535, 536, Locking mechanisms: 354, 415
543 Locus amoenus: 226, 403, 416,
Iterative forms: 5 n. 4, 10, 226, 271 Lot: 327, 329, 340, 511, 568
Lotus: 318
Jenseitsfahrt: 240–41 Lucian: 26 n. 2, 97–100, 103
Joke(s): 16, 26, 33, 34, 35, 248, 281, 458 Lugalbanda: 285
Junctural metanalysis: 357, 411–12 Lyra ~ Lytra: 106, 516
Lyre: see Chelys
Kanēphoroi: 572 as hetaira: 25, 33, 85 n. 17, 140, 246, 252,
Kertomia: 7 n. 15, 11, 32, 53, 113, 114, 276, 530, 537, 540, 541
365, 459, 462, 485 construction of: 4, 83–84, 88, 98, 103,
Kerykion (Mt.): 220, 302 104, 108, 126, 127, 237, 246, 258–63,
Kēryx: 95, 97, 221, 329, 458 272
Key: 353, 354, 415–16 nomenclature: 87, 280
Kindheitsmotif: 29–30 stringing/tuning of: 116, 134, 259, 270,
Kithara/Kitharis: 72, 89 n. 24, 98, 107, 114, 531
237, 280, 550
Kledonomancy: 567 Maia: 218–19, 239
Klēithron: 352–54 Magadion: 86, 98, 259, 267
Kleos: 32, 431, 529 Mageiros: 329
Klēros: see Lot Magic: 15, 55, 65 n. 60, 141 n. 50, 257, 283,
Knisē: 281, 343 291, 311, 324, 352, 415, 508, 547, 558,
Kollopes: 259, 269 559
Kōmos: 248, 525, 538, Mapsilogos: 18, 118, 142, 565, 566
Konträrbildung: 366 Marcus Argentarius: 124
krainein: 18–19, 508, 575 Marrow: 262, 333
Marsyas: 98 n. 44, 336
Lacuna: 17 n. 38, 95 n. 38, 297–99, 304, Matronymic: 384
305, 320, 376, 394, 450, 494, 495, 501, Meadow: 54, 240, 288, 292, 399–400,
503, 550, 556, 579 402
Laertes: 66 n. 65, 331, 376 Meat: 5, 6 n. 10, 16, 34, 35, 36, 53, 55, 68,
Language: 22–25, 27, 30, 31, 36, 37, 40–57, 69, 72, 90, 94, 113, 126, 146, 243, 257,
131, 138, 142–45, 256, 394, 429, 439, 258, 280–81, 323, 326–29, 332, 334,
446, 568 335, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346,
legalistic: 41, 290, 420, 424, 448 348, 349, 352, 437, 482, 501, 571
manipulation of: 256, 276 Megamedes: 313
non-verbal: 429, 475 Meli and melos: 19
riddling: 16, 85 n. 17, 567, 577 Melissa: 569–70, 573
Laughter: 26 n. 1, 28, 29, 30, 34, 90, 100, Merchant(s): 77 n. 3, 516
101, 111, 249, 276, 427, 429, 448, 503, Merging of Hermes’ and poet’s voice: 14,
545 539
Lazarillo de Tormes: 26 n. 2 Merlin: 26 n. 2
Learning: 139, 141, 142, 143, 318, 390, Messenger: 36, 95, 96–97, 99, 117, 216,
520, 532, 533, 535–36, 551, 562 221, 285, 440, 558, 571, 578, 582
Lebensprogramm: 72, 358, 365 Metamorphosis: 101, 108, 298; see also
Lies, lying: 17, 151, 427, 435, 476 Transformation
Index Rerum 663
Metrical lengthening: 63, 243, 264 Oath: 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 47, 65, 70, 77 n. 3,
Metiochus & Parthenope: 98, 103–104, 108 84–85, 95, 101, 127, 151, 298, 309, 337,
Metis: 30, 65, 151, 233, 273, 278, 285, 292, 423, 428–30, 447, 459, 472, 473, 474,
404, 433, 466 477, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 493, 549,
Meyer’s laws: 59–60, 64 554, 562
Mirroring (in text): 9, 11, 12, 14 n. 32, 73, by touching an object: 481, 528–29
128, 150, 152, 215, 447–48 evidentiary: 429
Mise en abyme: 9–12, 15 n. 34, 271–72, formula: 430, 482
514, 526 rhetorical: 429
analeptic: 271 Obscurity: 17, 21, 352
meta-textual: 514 Odysseus: 8, 20, 24 n. 59, 65–66, 138 n. 43,
Mist (gods wrapped in): 356, 398 140, 141, 148–49, 232–33, 360, 364,
Mnemosyne: 5, 12, 17, 218, 498, 509–11 376, 409, 429, 451, 520, 584
Mnesiepes Inscription: 27, 241 Oisyme cave (Thrace): 279
Molorchus: 119, 121, 300 Olbos: 244–45, 333, 480, 529
Monosyllabic verse-end: 61 Old Man (of Onchestos): 50, 54, 59, 66 n.
Muses: 5, 12, 17, 20, 29, 32, 72, 77, 142, 65, 71, 79, 94, 102, 120, 121, 126, 128,
218, 237, 241, 247, 272, 287, 425, 431, 241, 292, 299–304, 306, 352, 376, 377,
498–99, 505, 509–11, 512, 517–18, 378, 379–85, 389–96, 424, 431, 461,
519, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 538, 540, 468, 477
570, 572, 584 Olympia: 149–51, 314, 324, 325, 339, 349
Music: 4, 9, 12, 13, 18, 29, 30, 38, 39 n. 24, Olympus: 28, 29, 32, 54, 92, 95, 99, 100,
51, 72, 98, 106 n. 62, 126, 127, 138–41, 111, 126, 152, 215, 220, 227, 230, 235,
237–38, 245, 249, 250, 252, 254, 271, 237, 240, 244, 286–87, 354, 359, 377,
274, 286, 287, 358, 498, 499, 500, 505, 403, 427, 435, 448, 452, 456, 457, 459,
506–507, 513, 515, 516, 517–18, 520, 460, 483, 484, 488, 489, 528, 546, 548
522, 524, 525, 531, 539–42, 550, 563, Omen: 15, 16, 18, 36, 37, 118, 127, 142,
577 245, 250–51, 252, 348, 378, 388, 389,
Mute and liquid: 63 394, 397, 404, 419, 434, 439, 440–42,
Mycenaean: 216, 239 443, 459, 468, 565, 566
Myrtle: 12, 283, 293–94, 295, 467, 526 confirmatory: 439, 441
Mythological precedent: 245, 337 Onchestos: 70–73, 79, 92 n. 25, 94, 136,
145–46, 150, 152, 301–302, 378
Naeke’s law: 60 Opaque language: 16, 299
Naming: 85–86 Oracle: 17–19, 25, 47, 56, 70, 72, 73, 127,
Narcissus (flower): 254, 343 142, 149, 286, 378, 460, 560, 563–64,
Nēpios: 30, 357, 365, 417, 493 566–68, 570; see also Bee-oracle
Nestor’s Cave: 315 Oracular language: 46, 229, 539
Nicander: 87–88, 107 n. 62, 260 Orality: 37, 62 n. 29, 74 n. 82
Night: 29, 33, 66, 82, 99, 119, 215, 224, Ornithomancy: 396, 564
226, 229, 234, 235, 241, 280, 283, 284, Orpheus: 89, 114, 117, 246, 269, 499–500
286, 308–310, 311, 325, 349, 360, 436, Osiers: 494, 496, 497, 501
437, 480–81, 567, 582–83
Nonnus: 107–108 Pact: 47, 250–51, 549, 550, 557, 558
Nymph(s): 33, 53, 81–82, 95, 110–11, 219, Pan: 110–11, 220, 243, 415, 543, 552, 569
220, 221, 224, 225, 226, 239, 243, 272, Pan-Hellenic: 137, 153, 298
278–79, 302, 327, 337, 403, 404, 412, Pan-pipes: 94, 95, 236, 267, 320, 504, 546,
415, 426, 511, 512, 568–70, 572–73, 550, 551, 568
575 Pandora: 233, 272, 282, 451, 521
664 Index Rerum
Panurge: 26 n. 2 Philostratus: 95 n. 37, 100–101, 108, 220,

‘Paradoxical duplication’: 9 412, 418
Parallel of sound: 318, 358, 375, 408, 421, Philotēs: 15, 126, 549, 556
462, 582 Phlambouritsa: 225
Parallelism: 13, 20, 25, 380, 384, 402, 544, Phorminx: 114, 116, 140 n. 49, 252, 275,
555 280, 584
Parataxis: 23, 489, 567 Picaresque: 26
Parentage: 5, 56, 76, 78, 93, 111, 214, 215, Pieria: 286–87, 288, 315
218–19, 223, 229, 419, 510, 571 Pindar: 18 n. 42, 20, 75, 139–40, 546
Parenthetic phrases: 24, 59, 91, 246, 291, Platamōn: 328, 339
332, 366, 392, 430, 438, 448, 479, 480, Plaything: see Athyrma
507, 511, 512, 534, 551, 566 Plectrum: 94, 252, 273, 274, 559
Parody: 16 n. 37, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36, 48, 67 Pleiades: 87, 89, 219
n. 69, 70, 109, 112, 256, 296, 333, 365, Plural of habitual action: 426
372, 380, 440, 441, 470, 507, 510, 523, Poeta creator: 508
532, 582 Polar expression: 228, 351, 364, 447, 518,
Paronomasia: 374 520
Pars Epica: 240, 585 Pole-Axing: 333
Particles: 64, 372 Polyptoton: 359
σ: 488, 543, 551 Polytropos: 66, 229, 232–33, 414
, explanatory: 572 Pomponius: 284
: 528 Poseidon: 71, 145–46, 228, 301–302, 464,
σ: 488 564
apodotic: 316, 330 Potential optative: 258, 541
for : 425, 476 Practice: 139, 141–42, 520, 522, 540
_ … _: 265, 518 Praise: 5–8, 14, 26, 74, 141, 152, 216–18,
-: 473 271, 274, 276, 451, 499, 520, 530, 547,
particularizing: 519 586
solitarium: 538, 549 Pregnancy (duration of): 231
… C Ν (): 286 Priest: 35, 281, 300, 335, 336, 340, 248,
(epic): 264, 282, 297, 305, 405, 479 514, 577
: 246 Probability (argument from): 24, 30, 138,
φ7: 411 140, 379, 422–23, 425, 426, 427,
Pebbles, divination by: 95, 568 473–74
Pēchys: 45, 268–69 Probability (argument from), reverse: 140
Peisistratids: 137 n. 35, 148 Proems: 4 n. 2, 56, 215, 583–85
Pellene: 150–51 Proleptic characterizations: 221, 222, 228,
Pereiē: 315 234, 289, 355, 449, 458
Performance setting: 11, 150–52, 272, 526 Prometheus: 55, 68–69, 84, 149–50, 278,
Performative variants: 366, 396, 474, 576 320, 334, 345, 413
Perjury: 137 n. 35, 429, 431, 476, 480, 482 Prophecy: 8, 11, 23, 27, 30, 38–39, 46, 56,
Persephone: 14, 28, 29, 224, 254, 351 72, 95, 128, 142, 149, 151, 229, 236,
Petasos: 147, 496 530, 533, 546–47, 560–61, 568, 573–74
Phaikasia: 32, 91–92 Prothyraia: 236, 430, 482–83
Pheneos: 150–51, 220 Proverbial phrases: 16, 31, 55, 67, 120, 250,
Pherecydes of Athens: 96–97, 558, 567 256, 266, 291, 299, 304–305, 333, 389,
Pherecydes of Syros: 21 n. 53 451, 534, 566
Philiscus: 86 Pseudo-spontaneity: 75
Philōnis: 66 n. 62 Ptolemy Philadelphus: 118
Index Rerum 665
Pun: 14 n. 31, 19, 37 n. 18, 330, 360, 405, Salamander: 87, 257
422, 487, 510, 521 Sandals: 15, 38, 53, 66, 91–92, 132 n. 17/19,
Punctuation: 214, 252, 253–54, 313, 372, 147, 236, 283, 287, 292, 294–96, 389,
392, 423, 444, 515, 533, 534, 550, 559 394, 402, 459, 466, 467
Pusan: 111 n. 70, 553 Satyr-play: 26, 79, 81 n. 10, 96, 219, 270,
Pylos: 134 n. 24, 137 n. 35, 236, 240, 316, 284
490 Satyrs: 52, 80–84, 100, 248, 275, 464, 519
Pytho: 14 n. 31, 70, 142, 373, 569 Saula: 33, 248, 252, 530
Schelm: 26 n. 2
Quaker Oats box: 9 School: 148 n. 74, 218
Quoting: 31, 67, 88 n. 21, 113, 472, 576 Schwankliteratur: 26 n. 2
Seduction: 22 n. 59, 404
Rainbow: 398 Self-reflexivity: 4, 75
Ransom: 106, 516 Sēmata/Signs: 15–16, 20, 107, 346–47, 442,
Reciprocity: 137, 256, 359, 553, 582, 585; 485, 550, 557
see also Charis Shame: see Aidōs
Recognition: 250–51, 398, 463–64 Sheep: 52, 221, 239, 270, 400, 406, 449,
Re-contextualization: 16, 23 578, 579
Reflecting character: 107 Shepherd’s crook: 393, 558, 568
Relative predication: 223 Short-vowel subjunctive: 264, 437, 552
Re-literalization (of metaphor): 36, 53, 141 Silenus: 81, 252
n. 49, 339, 380 Simile: 7, 10–12, 41 n. 8, 52, 66, 118, 272,
Re-performance: 150 n. 82, 586 277, 344, 352, 354, 408–409, 437
Repetition: 10, 31, 36, 125, 127, 300, 323, double: 265,
402, 416, 423, 424, 452, 459–60, 468, Sirens: 116–17
473, 478, 489, 504, 505, 512 Sisyphus: 284, 422, 452
Rhapsōdia: 218 Sleep: 131, 224, 227, 234–35, 411, 426, 523,
Rhapsodic variants: 396, 402, 456; see also 558
Performative variants Sneeze: 36, 434, 441–42, 443, 503
Rhetoric: 22–23, 30, 37, 51, 84, 85, 128, Song: 4–14, 18–20, 22, 51, 68, 72, 73, 85,
130, 138–40, 246, 278, 352, 359, 422, 89, 92, 103, 111, 114, 116, 127, 138,
425, 426, 428, 429, 454–55, 475, 479, 141, 217–18, 229, 247, 258, 271–75,
508 277–79, 286, 431, 497, 498–500, 502,
Rhyming effect: 347, 363, 388, 487, 540, 579 504–12, 514, 517–25, 530, 538–39,
Riddle: 16–17, 20–21, 22 n. 59, 83, 85 n. 17, 547, 553, 561, 583–85
88, 126, 240, 246, 299, 322, 441, 567, as «: see Geras
572 embedded: 10, 514
Ring-Composition: 125, 215, 260, 414, reconciliatory power of: 114 n. 77
548, 563 Sophists: 138–39, 141, 426
Ritual: 35, 69, 113, 137, 152, 279, 309, 323, Sotades: 112, 409
327–28, 335, 339, 348, 349, 493, 514, Sound-box: 273–74,
573 Sound-play: 245
Souls (of dead): 98, 234–35, 240–41, 300,
Sacred Laws: 328, 336, 340 399–400, 418, 422, 529, 553, 558,
Sacrifice: 6 n. 10, 35, 38, 67, 69, 93, 113, 578
136, 146, 147 n. 73, 149, 152, 220, 221, Spargana: see Swaddling-clothes
239, 245, 261, 281, 314, 325–27, 329, Speed: 265, 301, 320, 355, 356, 395, 403,
331, 334, 335, 337, 340, 347–48, 564, 452, 472, 502
578 of thought: 263–64
666 Index Rerum
Sphageion: 326, 335 Terpander: 103, 134–35, 269

Sphragis: 583 Tetradistai: 11 n. 25, 239
Spoudaiogeloion: 39 Teumessus: 73, 112
Stalactites: 315, 337 Theagenes of Rhegium: 21
Star(s): 73, 87, 237, 354 Thelxis: 141
Status: 4–6, 8–9, 24–25, 32, 33, 70, 71, 108, Theocritus: 119–23
140, 220, 229, 239, 244, 263, 271, 276, Theoxenia: 150 n. 83, 281, 327–28, 335
278, 279, 281, 285, 302–303, 327–28, Threshold: 47, 243, 407,
340, 346, 359, 365, 375, 400, 414, 419, Thriai: 567–68
437, 443, 450, 472, 481, 496, 515, 523, Thyia: 575
529, 543, 547 Tiedke’s law: 61
Storeus: 319–21 Time: 9–10, 214–15, 230, 237, 263, 289,
Stratagem: 38, 79–80, 91, 101, 115, 147, 337, 338, 581, 583, 586
283–84, 291, 459, 466 defined through human activities:
Strings (of the lyre): 133–35, 269–70 226–27, 311
Styx: 430, 482, 483, 554 manipulation of: 308–10, 336
Succession Myth: 28 Tmesis: 267, 445
Sun: 66–67, 106 n. 62, 241, 286, 287, 288, Token: 15, 98, 251, 550, 557; see also
481 Sēma
Swaddling-clothes: 28, 32, 35, 37, 69, 71, Toy: see Athyrma
81–82, 97, 100, 111, 118, 280, 299, 356, Transformation: see also Metamorphosis
359, 361, 362, 408, 409, 410, 412, 414, Transition: 240, 297
418, 425, 426, 443, 444–45, 485, 495, Transposition: 99
513 Trapezōma: 35, 327–28, 340, 348
Swiftness: see Speed Treaties: 47, 251, 447, 487, 557, 564,
Syllepsis: 426 Tricolon crescens: 424, 428, 515; see also
Symbolic operator: 225 Behaghel’s Law
Symbolon: 15, 21, 46, 47, 250–51, 557, 558 Tricolon decrescens: 470
Symposion: 11–12, 34, 114, 150 n. 82, 272, Trickery, trickster: 23 n. 59, 27, 37–39,
277, 279, 522, 525, 526, 536, 538 68–69, 115, 150, 233, 282, 283,
Synecphonesis: 64, 371 291–92, 404, 435, 443, 451–52, 472,
Synizesis: 64, 279, 330–31, 527 514
Trophonius (oracle): 567, 570
Tamarisk: 283, 293, 294, 295, 467 Tuning: 116, 134, 270, 531
Tanagra: 220, 302 Tuning pegs: 259, 269;
Tartarus: 33, 54, 243, 362, 371, 417–18, see also Kollopes
420, 432, 438 Twelve Gods: 136, 137, 152, 314, 325, 328,
Teaching: 18, 29, 142, 151, 517–18, 520, 339–40, 348
532, 540, 577 Typhoeus: 28, 33, 68–70, 150–51, 432
Teisias: 138, 140, 423
Telphousa: 56, 73, 570 Underworld: 54, 56, 98–99, 225, 236, 240,
Temple: 47, 70, 89 n. 24, 91 n. 32, 127, 241, 284, 399, 418, 422, 470, 553, 558,
135–36, 146, 243–44, 294, 345, 355, 578
373, 374, 403–404, 407, 414, 415,
416, 417, 424, 556, 560, 564, 570, Vineyard: 50, 121, 258, 294, 301, 379–80,
573 382, 385, 389
inventories: 374, 416 Vorabenteuer: 241
Temporal progression Voss, J. H.: 131–33
(of narrative):
Index Rerum 667
Whistling: 433–44 Word-and-deed: 266
‘White maidens’: 568, 573 Wordplay: 86, 87, 249, 468, 516, 536, 581
Winnowing fan: see Liknon
Witness: 101, 299, 309, 474, 477, 481 Xenophanes: 21
Wonderment: 126, 463, 493, 498, 519; see
also Bafflement Zygon: 98, 259, 269
668 Index Locorum
Index Locorum
1. GREEK AUTHORS Aeschines 279: 573

AND TEXTS 2.60: 448 308: 521
(NB h.Herm. has not been 2.105: 448 331: 217
indexed) 2.158: 275 450: 295
567: 332
Achilles Tatius Aeschylus 616–18: 562
Intr.Arat. Ag. 620: 563
24: 88 n. 22 23: 563 634: 357
119: 288 644: 381
Acta Petri et Andreae 196: 225 867: 522
(Bonnet) 250–51: 454 924: 251
3–5 (II 118–20): 300 411: 468 937: 349
412–13: 369
Acusilaus 499: 395 Pers.
(FGrH) 874: 225 10: 446
2 F 9: 96–97, 234 1024: 487 32: 233
2 F 19: 315 1147: 357 93: 492
1163: 493 626–29: 487, 578
Adespota Elegiaca 1390: 509 662: 563
(IEG) 1606: 356 962: 422
22.2: 264 1007: 467
27.3–6: 276 Cho.
61.4: 364 1: 223 Th.
124–25: 578 36: 477
Adespota Tragica 205: 468 39: 392
(TGrF II) 209: 398 41: 477
222: 415 210: 468 369: 477
228: 468 371: 444
Aelianus 279: 563 390: 312
NA 529: 356 396: 353
1.42: 471 622: 578 498: 575
3.42: 254 799: 400 529–32: 529
4.2: 254 812–18: 582 626: 442
5.49: 454 815: 236 836: 575
6.29: 254 859: 288
11.10: 275 Eu. 904: 421
12.30: 281 4–5: 509
14.16: 386 90–92: 368 Supp.
14.24: 293 90–91: 487 77: 442
15.19: 530 109: 295 91–92: 554
Index Locorum 669
Aesch., Supp. (cont.) Aesopica Alcman
95: 293 Fab. (PMGF)
180: 464 102: 508 1.73: 462
213–14: 288 106: 256 1.86–87: 351
291–92: 415 108: 508 2.2: 529
300: 393 125: 396 2 iv 6: 539
351–52: 492 236: 396 4 i 9: 462
526: 244 323: 396 5 ii col. i 16, 21: 462
564: 575 5 ii col. ii 11–13: 257
641–42: 564 Prov. 8.9: 510
695: 521 180: 460 14c: 305
750: 492 17.5: 317
783: 464 Aëtius Doxographus 27: 499
5.21, 23: 231 28: 505
Fr. 48: 362
44.6: 295 Aëtius Medicus 68: 317
47a.6: 335 15.7: 293 89.3–4: 580
47a.786: 249 89.4: 263
47a.807: 389 Agathias 89.5: 381
161: 581 Histor. (Keydell) 89.6: 396
168.19: 537 B 7.4: 332 98: 347
192.5–8: 286 19.4: 332
239: 524 Alexander Aetolus
273: 221 Alcaeus (Magnini)
273a.11–13: 555 (Voigt/SLG) 3.11: 216
355.16: 529 34.3–4: 252
553: 573 34.10: 552 Alexis
67.3: 362 (PCG)
[Aeschylus] 70.3: 540 9.10: 276
Pr. 208.7: 357 93.1: 487
60: 468 308b.1: 220 93.2: 235
79: 332 308b + S264: 76–77, 364 260: 239
83: 452 345.2: 396
115–16: 281 347b.2: 507 Amipsias
181: 332 359: 245 (PCG)
191: 556 367.1: 308 23: 374
231: 438 396: 255
355: 432 447: 329 Anacreon
443–48: 305 S262.20 (298.20 V): Fr. melica (PMG)
462: 381 45, 269 347.5–6: 349
530–31: 514 347.17: 575
645: 436 Alciphron 348.7–8: 368
658: 374 2.19.3: 254 349.1: 488
679: 468 3.7.3: 454 356a.1: 419
731: 307 3.13.1: 511 356a.6: 488
796–97: 312 356b.1: 488
1082–83: 330 360.1: 419
362.1–2: 231
373.2–3: 252
670 Index Locorum
Anacreon (cont.) 7.13: 570 Antisthenes

393: 446 7.173: 314 (Caizzi)
396.1: 419 7.433.5: 363 Od. fr. 15.14: 451
378: 275 7.509.2: 338
402a: 275 7.643.3: 369 Antoninus Liberalis
411b: 248 7.657.10: 227 23: 77 n. 4, 107 n. 62, 298
458: 248 9.134.6: 364 314–15
485: 217 9.250.5–6: 269 23.2: 289, 300
501.11: 493 9.519.2: 342 23.3: 494
11.176.2: 234 32.5: 338
Fr. elegiaca (IEG) 11.268.3: 442 36.2: 338
2.4: 522 11.352.11–12: 336 37.6: 338
12.79.2: 330
Anacreontea 12.93.4: 42 Apollodorus Mythographus
(West) 14.30: 246 (FGrH)
43.10–11: 540 14.78.5: 255 244 F 129: 234, 239
55.2–3: 516 14.93.10: 255 244 F 260: 449
16.26.3: 450
Anaxandrides 16.137.5: 364 [Apollodorus]
(PCG) 16.202.4: 303 Bibl.
1: 526 I 13: 510
Appendix Anthologiae I 40: 432
Andocides Graecae I 46–47: 578
1.27, 40: 425 (Cougny) I 112: 66 n. 62
1.117: 368 Epigr. Demonstr. II 6: 381
116.1–2: 577 II 67: 301
Andromachus II 129: 65
141: 559 Epigr. Dedicat. III 70: 528
196: 482 III 101: 219
Anthologia Palatina III 112–15: 93–97
5.127.2: 124 Epigr. Sepulcr. III 112: 66 n. 62, 96, 345
5.127.4: 124 238.3: 264 III 113: 273
5.127.5–6: 124, 359 407.2: 264 III 114: 396, 412
5.153.3–4: 386 699.2: 369 III 115: 96, 97
5.175.7: 363 III 122: 115, 418, 421
5.184.6: 363 Antigonus Carystius
5.237.5: 471 Mir. Apollodorus Carystius
6.2.2: 331 7: 88 n. 21, 113, 269–70 (PCG)
6.43.1: 247 5.10: 446
6.52.2: 535 Antimachus Colophonius
6.114, 115, 116: 337 (Matthews) Apollodorus Lyricus
6.124.1–2: 331 3: 111–12 (PMG)
6.143: 247 31.4–5: 323 701.1–2: 453
6.212.2: 362 68.1: 357
6.267.3–4: 454 156: 411 Apollonius Rhodius
6.276.6: 313 1.27: 504
6.334.3: 239 Antiphanes 1.51–52: 370
6.346.1: 219 (PCG) 1.245: 306
7.8.5–6: 510 204.5: 374 1.307: 453
Index Locorum 671
Apollonius Rhodius (cont.) 2.326: 536 4.103: 266
1.333: 537 2.495: 457 4.121: 216
1.345: 537 2.507: 307 4.147: 504
1.363–401: 113, 339 2.526: 338 4.168: 331
1.365: 113, 339 2.733: 338 4.231: 536
1.380: 554 2.794: 290 4.267: 370
1.394: 113 n. 75, 448 2.1145: 216 4.394: 367
1.395: 113 n. 75 2.1154: 536 4.409: 306
1.439: 362 2.1198: 391 4.534: 338
1.457–59: 113–14, 276 2.1266: 358 4.587–88: 306
1.484: 362 3.129–53: 115 4.612: 362
1.486: 485 3.129: 115 4.614: 116
1.494–518: 114, 499–500 3.130: 541 4.616–7: 116
1.495: 114, 275 3.132: 115, 254, 255 4.616: 116, 408
1.496–511: 113 n. 75, 114 3.152: 115, 565 4.674–75: 316
1.511: 537 3.189: 348 4.728–29: 552
1.512: 114 3.231: 322 4.763: 324
1.515: 114 3.288: 502 4.847–88: 263
1.518: 114 3.293: 331 4.877: 116, 354
1.557: 486, 513 3.294–95: 349 4.878: 116
1.580: 370 3.309: 286 4.906–9: 116–17
1.581: 387 3.318: 367 4.907: 275
1.624: 452 3.354: 536 4.950: 358
1.627: 544 3.382: 395 4.974: 394
1.636: 575 3.398: 275 4.989: 577
1.699: 500 3.400: 500 4.1030: 554
1.724: 577 3.401: 448 4.1067: 334
1.785: 278 3.435: 367 4.1137: 216
1.850: 504 3.515: 116 4.1165: 541
1.924–25: 387 3.516: 115–16, 444 4.1192: 315
1.937: 370 3.529: 577 4.1218: 543
1.1029: 446 3.532: 308 4.1286: 237
1.1060: 238 3.587–88: 221 4.1294: 394
1.1067: 432 3.588: 216 4.1298–1303: 265
1.1110–25: 325 3.678: 368 4.1333: 529
1.1172: 303 3.693: 395 4.1376: 290
1.1182–84: 115, 322 3.791–92: 485 4.1413: 449
1.1184: 319 3.816: 319 4.1588: 391
1.1238: 536 3.936: 435 4.1672: 541
1.1249: 332 3.939: 534 4.1714–20: 325
1.1267–68: 391 3.949–50: 358 4.1732–33: 234
1.1272: 461 3.949: 540
1.1325: 387 3.1018–19: 265, 502 Aratus
1.1354: 338 3.1119: 500 10: 231
2.33: 393 3.1242: 301 198–99: 362
2.42: 265 3.1284: 414 203: 361
2.55–56: 544 3.1357: 462 230: 231
2.164–65: 350 3.1381: 543 242: 361
2.258: 511 4.2: 512 263: 87
672 Index Locorum
Aratus (cont.) Aristides Eq.

268–69: 86–87, 263 (Jebb) 10: 455
268: 87 Hierōn logōn 77: 401
269: 216 4.31: 280 200: 537
274: 231 Hyper rhētorikēs 205: 363
278: 565 2.420: 508 530: 247
321: 363 639: 441
343: 348 Aristophanes 1015: 415
351: 231 Ach.
469–70: 519 263–65: 228 Lys.
500: 231 264–65: 538 27–28: 433
914: 351 431: 356 60: 280
972: 351 628–29: 540 209: 450
695–96: 471 264: 354
Archestratus 816: 554 476: 381
(Olson-Sens) 843: 471 722: 276
36.6–10: 112 991: 368 773: 457
40.3: 267 1302: 114
Av. 1306: 356
Archilochus 216–19: 280
(IEG) 244: 307 Nu.
1.1: 523 489: 350 312: 521
1.2: 142, 520 673: 321 394: 440
36.1: 225 702: 455 595: 216
48.6: 342 748–50: 570 614: 350
49.7: 282, 283 852: 412 783: 422
66: 363 909: 523 950–51: 526
88.1: 488 912: 540 1327: 374
91.30–31: 454 913: 523
94.2: 355 925: 265 Pax
108: 442 1190: 368 267: 446
140.2: 44, 436 1411: 396 381: 332
174.1: 20 n. 51 1415: 396 524–25: 281
185.1: 20 n. 51 1715: 405 950–51: 526
188.3: 504 1274: 268
191.1: 414 Ec. 1294: 422
191.3: 498 60: 412 1328: 375
193.3: 334 169: 422
196.40: 444 283: 280 Pl.
196a.3: 536 377: 280 382: 401
211.1: 539 483: 355 909: 374
218: 250 545: 355 1115: 554
248: 477 677: 401 1120–23: 281
297: 437 732: 572 1141: 374
328.7: 45, 269 792: 251 1159: 529
973–74: 570
Aristaenetus 999: 511 Ra.
1.1: 381 196: 251
230: 551
Index Locorum 673
Aristophanes, Ra. (cont.) 620a2: 471 425e: 275–76
384–85: 584 627a24: 350 639b: 38
665: 42 627b12: 410 671f: 497
674: 523
822: 401 Pol. Bacchylides
1144–45: 223 1277a24: 306 3.39: 362
1273: 569 1290a20–29: 540 3.62: 374
1313: 331 1332a26: 505 3.85: 20 n. 52
1459a17: 267 4.12: 454
Th. 5.9–10: 218
741–42: 231 Rh. 5.20: 379
754–55: 335 1361a34–35: 267 5.73: 505
758: 336 1382b32: 306 5.89–91: 361
959–61: 278 1409a24–29: 507 5.167: 314
977: 543 1415b22–24: 389 5.174–75: 541
986: 247 1418a7: 306 5.175: 462
8.17: 374
V. Sens. 9.2–6: 20 n. 50
4: 381 437a23–25: 266 9.36: 265
9: 227 9.85–87: 273
725: 269 Fr. (Rose) 10.10: 570
802–804: 483 597: 304 10.14: 419
875: 483 10.35–38: 391
1173: 248 [Aristoteles] 10.53: 522
1177: 441 Phgn. 11.12: 538
812b5: 386 11.13–14: 217
Fr. (PCG) 11.41: 369
205.9: 453 Pr. 11.101: 286
432: 294 920b3: 270 11.106: 442
553: 573 921b27: 270 13.39: 462
635: 248 13.105–109: 282
Arrianus 13.121: 274
Aristoteles Cyn. 13.186–89: 511
Ath.Pol. 35.4: 529 16.5: 308
14.3: 387 16.15: 486
Artemidorus Daldianus 17.17–18: 265
GA 2.37: 543 17.65: 442
772b9: 231 18.18–19: 425
779a32, 35: 387 Asclepiades Cyprius
(FGrH) Fr.
HA 752 F 1: 281, 343 1.77: 432
491b14–18: 433 4.21: 407
512b18, 22, 25: 357 Asius (IEG) 14.2: 419
536a7–8: 258 8.2: 322 20b.1–3: 531
556a24: 225 20b.3: 282
583b25: 231 Athenaeus 33: 419
584a37: 231 16b: 234
591a16: 288 139e: 274 Batrachomyomachia
593b23: 489 337b: 257 170b: 402
674 Index Locorum
Bion Dian. 177.14: 364

5.8: 505 2–3: 114 177.15–16: 121
5–28: 249 178.33: 541
Fr. (Gow) 6: 23 n. 60 194.6: 20 n. 51
10.7: 551 14: 385 194.83: 409
10.8: 246 25: 118, 242 497a: 556
33: 436 547: 264
Boethius 39: 255 714.4: 565
Inst. Mus. 40: 555 735: 338
1.20: 269 68–69: 118 737: 411
69: 216
Callimachus 91: 255 Chamaeleon
Epigr. (Pfeiffer) 99–100: 491 (Wehrli)
5.4: 357 100: 118 34: 514
20.2: 387 143: 216
152: 364 Choerilus Samius
Hec. (Hollis) 165: 559 (SH)
18.1: 467 242: 275 317.2: 523
69.6: 441 250: 374 318: 577
74.9: 568
74.17: 411 Jov. Clei(to)demus
74.24: 373 3: 42, 117 (FGrH)
15: 117 323 F 5: 329
Hymni 46–51: 573
Ap. 47–48: 242 Clemens Alexandrinus
43: 511 48: 117 Paed.
47: 543 49: 9, 117, 574, 576 3.11.69: 248
100: 374 68: 117, 441
110: 569 78: 117, 523 Cleon Curiensis
252: 247 79–80: 511 (SH)
87–8: 117 340.1: 455
Cer. 91: 117
49: 461 Coluthus
64: 264 Lav.Pall. 43: 233
138: 369 123–24: 118, 565
131–33: 555 Cornutus
Del. (Lang)
142: 323 Fr. (Pfeiffer) ND
162–95: 249 18.7 p. 25.7: 554
249–55: 269 21.3: 311 p. 21. 4–6: 222
252: 247 59.8: 255 p. 21.3–5 335
253–54: 89 n. 23 75.36: 264 p. 21.15–16: 562
266: 452 100.2: 262 p. 23.12: 239
269: 439 110.48: 446 p.24.1: 529
272: 216 110.50: 519
304: 275 177.5–6 (= SH 259): Crates Comicus
319: 357 119, 191 (PCG)
177.9–11: 119 17.7: 292
177.12–14: 118–19, 121
Index Locorum 675
Crates Thebanus Diogenes Laërtius Duris
(SH) 1.17: 453 (FGrH)
359: 510 2.143: 461 76 F 68: 275
Cratinus Dionysius Chalcus Empedocles

(PCG) (IEG) (D.-K.)
6.3: 305 1, 4: 526 8.1: 571
25: 381 76.2: 268
42: 483 Dionysius Halicarnassensis 84: 266
129: 422 Ant. Rom. 100.4: 452–53
236.2: 458 1.13.3: 290 112.12: 334
407: 233 1.39: 284 115.6: 317
8.9.3: 487–88
Cypria 8.11.2: 290 Epicharmus
(Bernabé) 20.17.1: 541 (PCG)
1.7: 230 9.2: 317
Comp. 32.5: 395
Democritus
11.8: 47, 542 40.10: 317
(D.-K.)
79.1: 317
65: 452
Lys. 122.1: 317
15: 306
Demosthenes
Eratosthenes
9.27: 448
[Dionysius Er. (CA)
18.129: 540
Halicarnassensis] 1: 90–91 (n. 29)
18.265: 433
Rh. (Radermacher-
21.19: 368
Usener) Herm. (CA):
21.78–79: 476
10.14: 267 89–92, 104 n. 59
23.50: 306
1: 90
33.16: 368
Dionysius Periegeta 3: 89
38.6: 245
529: 537 4: 89–90 n. 27
41.7: 255
949: 249 5: 89 n. 27
41.19: 255
950: 338 6: 89–90
[Demosthenes] 7: 90
25.89: 305 Dioscorides 9: 90, 91
61.16: 453 1.103.2–3: 497 10: 92
1.103.3: 497 11: 90
Dio Chrysostomus 2.169: 400 12: 92
1.53: 337 3.107: 225 13: 90
4.95: 235–36 4.7: 293 15: 90
37.12: 301 16: 92
Diphilus 24: 90
Diodorus Siculus (PCG)
3.47.8: 245 3.3: 412 SH
3.59.2: 89 n. 24 66.2: 350 397: 89 n. 25, 91 n. 32
5.67.2: 69 n. 72, 319–20
5.70.5: 573 Dorotheus [Eratosthenes]
5.75.3: 98 n. 44 p. 405.18: 51 Cat.
9.19.1: 246 24: 88–89, 93 n. 36, 269
19.94.1: 290
676 Index Locorum
Eubulus (PCG) Ba. 1345: 523

70: 250 3: 405 1670: 219
93.8: 538 159: 504
106.1–9: 441 212: 444 HF
503: 450 24
Eumelus 603: 556 96: 368
Fr. melicum (PMG) 618: 469 113: 436
696.2: 292 725: 556 133: 472
952: 551 332: 354
Fr. Epica (Bernabé) 1133: 486 361–63: 409
16: 512 1167: 538 943: 450
17: 512 1342: 556 1029: 354
1349: 555 1251: 267
Euphorio Chalcidensis 1267: 356
(CA) Cyc. 1399: 471
51.15: 366 40: 248
98.4: 369 247: 416 Heracl.
218–19: 509
(SH) El. 417, 426: 485
418.17: 514 461–62: 219 858: 275
464–66: 286
Eupolis 464–65: 350 Hipp.
(PCG) 495: 493 540–41: 415
312: 292 502: 471 653: 471
354: 526 702–703: 551 750–51: 548
395: 526 702: 267 808: 354
712: 278 829: 476
Euripides 800: 335 902–903, 1152: 444
Alc. 954: 400 1284: 578
264–65: 368 1000: 417 1339–40: 434
404–405: 368 1094–95: 368 1391–94: 281
642: 467 1108: 493
835: 524 Hyps. (TGrFS)
886: 461 Hec. 129–30: 415
962: 522 42: 369 169: 450–51
978–79: 554 64: 450
1125: 462 69, 72: 436 Ion
31: 493
Andr. Hel. 32: 356
52: 374 243: 219 82–83: 286
250: 450 438: 247 164: 280
510, 530, 842: 389 619: 462 211–12: 555
880: 400 835: 429 280: 493
1025–27: 453 1074: 357 373–80: 565
1180: 471 1109: 247 421: 564
1205: 389 1175: 477 461–64: 575
1256: 455 1180: 354 464: 19
1190: 436 498: 551
1308–1309: 461 662: 415
Index Locorum 677
Euripides, Ion (cont.) 736: 368 [Euripides]
743: 468 1258: 522 Rh.
882: 504 1274: 468 55: 436
918: 356 1283: 469 85–86: 444
921, 948: 405 1458–59: 265 112: 307
1072: 471 134, 150, 155: 477
1148–49: 286 Phaëth. (Diggle) 205: 401
1213: 486 2–3: 286 216–17: 233, 373
1266: 450 219: 472 367: 389
1486–87: 231 225: 288 501: 436
1596: 405 737: 471
Ph. 788: 436
IA 92: 468
156–59: 286 544: 394 Lyrica Adespota
436: 355 786: 295 PMG
577: 267 791: 538 848.2: 317
791: 223 923: 335 887.1: 220
849: 462 1028: 521 887.4: 522
1181: 368 1375: 486 889: 264
1507: 247 890.4: 275
IT 1564: 471 900: 538
99: 354 1660: 450 902.1: 275
830: 389 929e.1.3–4: 478
966: 486 Supp. 937.7: 572
973: 415 95–96: 335 953.1: 456
1126: 267 277: 389 999.1: 357
1128–29: 269, 275 365: 542 1008: 565
1223: 494
1249–83: 236 Tr. SLG
1254–56: 415 219: 549 460.8: 351
1304: 354 267: 389
1462–63: 415 342: 400–401 CA
405: 368 1.11: 310
Med. 511–13: 216 7.1: 537
100: 420 682: 498 9.2: 385
190–94: 11 n. 25 690: 357 20.1–3: 510
425: 519 759: 356
613: 250–51 1081: 389 Galenus
759: 487 1087: 542 (Kühn)
833–34: 510 III 291: 453
902: 486 Fr. IV 577: 270
956: 450 322.5: 275 VI 33: 426
1110: 476 371: 453 VI 360: 267
1216: 450 397a: 471 VI 651–52: 400
1266: 446 430.2–3: 513 VIII 172: 270
492.2: 462 X 747: 267
Or. 839.6: 450 XI 842: 400
137–38: 355 XII 31: 293
231: 262 XV 816: 433
678 Index Locorum
Galenus (cont.) Hephaestion Astrologus 2.133.4: 275

XVIIIb 576, 581, 582: In Cat. Cod. Astr. 2.134.1: 537
528 p. 297.13: 51 2.135.1: 540
XIX 121: 295 2.138.4, 145.4: 498
XIX 131: 339 Heraclitus 2.173.1: 350
XIX 145: 453 Alleg. 2.179: 430
UP 1.22 (III 80): 254 73: 562 3.17.2: 477
3.18: 322
Geoponica Heraclitus Philosophus 3.21.2: 477
1.14.8: 258 (D.-K.) 3.40: 530
3.3.6, 3.10.1: 303 34: 304–305 3.53.3: 535
4.1.14: 304 3.72.1: 527
17.3.1: 495 Hermippus 3.86.2: 442
(PCG) 3.115.5: 477
Pan et Echo 25: 572 3.135.2: 266
(GDRK I Herodas 4.16.1: 477
XVII r.29: 449 3.34, 4.33, 4.50: 566 4.74: 522
4.122.2: 468
Gregorius Cyprius Herodorus 4.145.3: 330
(Leutsch-Schneidewin) (FGrH) 4.148.4: 134 n. 24
1.48: 266 34a-b: 325 4.157.2: 527
4.181.3: 507
Gregorius Nazianzenus Herodotus 5.7: 498
Carmina (Migne) 1.8.1: 459 5.13.2: 488
I 9.13: 498 1.23: 419 5.49.5: 452
II 4.95: 563 1.34.2: 305 5.65.10: 137 n. 35
1.34.3: 529 5.67.5: 278
Hecataeus 1.35.1: 476 5.72: 415
(FGrH) 1.47.3: 43, 264, 268, 305 5.83.1: 447
363: 338 1.48.2: 263 5.83.3: 462
386: 90 n. 27 1.54.1: 374 5.921: 293
1.55.1: 338 5.102.2: 468
Heliodorus Scriptor 1.66: 46 5.119.2: 378
Eroticus 1.68.2: 540 6.17.6: 233
2.6: 412 1.82.2: 290 6.57.2: 340
2.22.2: 330 1.88.2: 461 6.63.1: 231
3.5.1: 234 1.116.5: 478 6.69: 247
1.133.3: 459 6.69.5: 231
Heliodorus Tragicus 1.136.1–2: 491 6.127.3: 300
(SH) 1.159.3: 461 7.81: 476
472.11: 444 1.210.2: 446 7.26.3: 336
2.2.2: 493 7.125: 461
Hellanicus 2.29.1: 477 7.128.1: 307
(FGrH) 2.51.1, 67.1: 498 7.200.1: 301
19b.1–8: 78, 215, 282 2.118.3: 430 7.218.1: 437
125: 137 n. 35 2.121".1: 461 7.229.1: 387
2.121. 2: 420 8.79.4, 80.1: 477
2.124.3: 301 8.86, 91: 461
2.125.5: 556 8.115.2: 321
Index Locorum 679
Herodotus (cont.) 81–103: 12 330: 261
8.140: 522 82: 561 333: 224
9.2.2: 387 87ff.: 139 334: 509
9.91: 250 87: 497 347: 526
9.116.2: 416 94–95: 247, 511 355: 458
94: 523 357: 252
Hesiodus 99–103: 114, 502 361: 512
Th. 100: 523 364: 397
1–2: 223 103: 517 371: 313
2: 548 104: 251, 499, 524, 550 375: 224
4: 523 108–13: 509 376: 313
7–8: 523, 538 109: 575 377: 313
7: 237 114–15: 512 380: 359
8: 499, 524, 549 114: 17 n. 40, 512 387: 529
9: 356, 398 112: 371 388: 355
10 119: 371 389: 455
12: 292 122: 264 393: 371
15: 379 133: 348 395–96: 367
16: 224 160: 520 396: 533
22–34: 218 164: 441 397: 455
22: 142 166: 266 399: 371
25: 523 169: 417 405: 359
26: 437 172: 266 418–19: 467
27–28: 17 n. 41, 425, 540 174, 178: 405 418: 507
28: 505 186: 297 420: 244, 333
29–34 194: 224 426–27: 533
30–31: 321 203: 371 433: 536
31–32: 519 223: 455 438: 333, 536
35: 75 n. 85 230: 540 442: 529
39: 289 233: 232 445–46: 438
42: 406 235: 476 445: 544
43–51: 512 245: 252 453: 457
43 251: 252 454: 271
44: 225 254: 502 459: 345
50–51: 217 259: 458 461: 464
53–54: 68, 510 269: 338, 572 471: 440
53: 287 271: 518 485: 356
54: 220 272: 508 489: 293
55: 521 275: 537 492: 242
56–57: 68 279: 288 496: 520
58–61: 68, 215 280: 493 497: 345
60: 387 281: 242 499: 397, 406
63: 523 289: 330 501: 361
64: 499 291: 314 509–10: 82
65, 67: 519 302: 508 518: 537
69: 509 303: 261 521–22: 361
71: 238 306: 533 522: 361
74: 371 321: 386 525: 396
75: 272 328: 529 535–37: 345
680 Index Locorum
Hesiodus, Th. (cont.) 784: 430, 554 22: 370

535: 517 786: 492 35: 517
538: 334, 335 789–804: 429 39: 436
544: 339, 435 797: 293 48: 233
540: 520 802: 515 49: 266
546: 233 806: 337 55: 498
547: 54, 68, 149, 291, 520 807: 371 66: 521
550–51: 55, 413 815: 379 68: 216
550: 395 826–27: 33, 55, 432, 502 77–79: 233
551: 68, 149 827: 149 78: 233, 451, 454
560: 54, 291, 435, 520 832: 519 79–80: 22 n. 58
574: 416 833: 450 79: 355, 498
582: 381 835: 33, 342 83: 54, 282
585: 272 864–65: 348 95: 227, 266
588: 508 868: 417 102–103: 265
596: 387, 391 869: 33, 432 107: 486
597: 574 872: 565 112: 450
601: 457 874: 575 129: 458
618: 361 875: 406 134: 441
631: 393 878: 308 170: 450
632: 464 889–90: 451 171: 348
652: 361 890: 454 178: 265
653: 371, 421 900: 440 194: 224
654: 350 910: 289, 432 202–12: 20
658: 371 913: 227 202: 20
659: 361 915–17: 510 205: 334
665: 396 920: 224 207: 351
675: 492 923: 224 208: 247
678: 357 928: 446 212: 396
682: 371 930–55: 302 218: 530
696: 149, 322 938–39: 226, 302 223: 398
701: 519 938: 56, 68, 266 257: 224, 529
706: 379 940: 457 258: 251
718: 361 950: 224 260: 505
[721]: 371 952: 271 261: 441
[723a]: 371 963: 251 263: 454
726: 61 n. 32 966: 523 281: 244
728: 338 988: 479 291: 390
729: 371 991: 571 299: 540
730: 498 992: 561 294: 530
733: 357 1022: 523 300–301: 224
736: 371 308: 221
741: 390 Op. 316: 43, 573
744: 509 1–2: 223 344: 373, 459
757: 356 2: 512 354–55: 256
758: 509 8: 457 355: 581
760–61: 477 9: 442 365: 23, 31, 67, 149, 256
777: 512 11–12: 462 371: 477
780: 582 12: 391 373: 421
Index Locorum 681
Hesiodus, Op. (cont.) 789: 454 Fr.
374: 454 794: 238 1.2: 523
375: 282 795: 51, 331, 385, 579 1.3: 223
376–77: 316 797: 502 1.7: 509
382: 55, 67–68, 149, 803: 533 1.16: 529
333–34 811 1.21: 216
383: 477 12.2: 373
394: 363 [Hesiodus] 17a.13: 379
400: 486 Sc. 23a.21–22: 467
402: 459 6: 359 25.29: 271
406: 393 7: 432 25.36: 542
427: 303 20: 477 25.40: 532
432: 515 21: 481 26.10–11: 523
437: 460 30–33: 309 30.16: 441
443: 43 33: 312 30.22: 371, 417
452: 238 41: 513 33a: 102 n. 51
504: 44 46: 349 33a.5: 288
516: 397 68: 442 34: 308
530: 455 88: 458 35.2–4: 468
541: 292 95: 389, 420 35.2: 467
548: 237 98: 366 37: 316
560: 310 116–17: 503 37.4: 361, 496
567: 477 164: 275 43a.61–63: 463
569: 311 167: 386 43a.62: 461
572: 303 177: 386 43a.63: 469
577: 45, 350 202–203: 280, 505 43a.69: 421
579–81: 311 202: 384, 524, 545, 550 43a.73: 416
590: 227 204: 244 43 b-c: 102 n. 51
594: 393 220: 292 51.3: 362
603: 486 222: 264 54 a-c: 315
605: 310, 480 244: 330 54a: 418
607: 279, 324 272: 536 54a.4–5: 417
628: 482 280: 524, 538 59.4: 314
635: 462 281: 538 59.15: 216
649: 539 284–85: 536 60: 396
658–59: 367 297: 236 60.2: 374, 397
671–72: 538 302: 315 64.15–18: 66 n. 62
674: 62 n. 44 313: 236 64.18: 220
686: 459 318: 355 66.4: 216, 220
711–13: 549 349: 384 67a.5: 65
713: 62 n. 48 355: 527 67b: 102 n. 51
720: 267 365: 467 70.6: 304, 452
726: 442 383: 355 70.9: 313
727: 441 389: 353 137.1: 216
743: 375 444: 509 141.1: 362
762: 467 479: 362 141.5: 268
770: 239 141.18: 332, 507
785: 238 145.13: 342
788: 462 150.12: 534
682 Index Locorum
[Hesiodus], fr. (cont.) 405: 308 125: 453

150.15: 317 130: 450
150.18: 323 Hippocrates(Littré) 133: 409
150.22: 452 Aër. 141, 156: 411
150.23: 378 6: 264 205, 209: 318
150.31: 216 12: 322 217, 241: 411
163: 102 n. 51 22: 264
169–70: 219 29: 264 Nat.Hom.
169: 78 n. 6 11.7: 357
169.1: 252 Decent.
169.3: 219 2: 413 Nat.Mul.
170.1: 461 4: 360, 524 6, 37, 40: 411
193.11: 56
195.43: 361 Ep. Oct.
198.11: 52, 61 n. 36, 10: 231 13: 231
331, 385 13: 465
204.51: 316 17: 231, 242 Steril.
204.52: 373 18: 577 245: 255
204.91: 317
204.97: 457 Epid. Superf.
204.126: 446, 543 4.31: 433 29: 411
204.138: 411 5.13: 231
205.4–5: 102 n. 51 5.99, 7.30: 295 Vict.
209.5: 263 1.10: 465
217.2: 216, 219 Insomn.
229.9: 271 86: 552 Hipponax
235.2–3: 78 n. 6 (IEG)
239.2: 332 Int. 3: 220
239.4: 293 37: 297 3a: 289
240.1–3: 370 3a.1: 351
240.10–11: 564 Morb. 32.1: 220
248: 364 2.17: 433 35: 219, 220
253.1: 562 2.22: 321 50.2: 363
253.2: 379 2.28: 354 79.7: 559
256: 96, 101, 298 2.47, 61: 504 79.9–11: 289
257.3: 542 2.72: 450 79.11: 433
280.5: 518 7.122: 262 102.4: 425
280.12: 464 122: 488
280.23: 371 Morb.Sacr. 177: 527
294.2: 55, 433 1.89: 543
301: 373 Homerus
306: 539 Mul. Il.
316: 334 4, 8: 336 1.1–2: 223
316.1: 531 10: 450 1.1: 216, 217
338: 269 25: 336 1.5: 230
343.1: 457 36: 450 1.8: 17
354: 102 n. 51 38: 297 1.25: 460
357: 217 74: 318 1.34: 463
372.9: 529 110: 357 1.43: 442
Index Locorum 683
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 1.379: 460 2.73: 373
1.44: 350 1.396–406: 28, 553 2.76: 473
1.47: 49, 470 1.399–400: 496 2.79: 220
1.52: 264 1.401: 361 2.88: 311
1.66–67: 281, 343 1.406: 366 2.93–94: 519
1.66: 340 1.424: 428 2.100–105: 132
1.68: 473 1.426: 243 2.102–103: 286
1.70: 20 n. 49 1.428: 312 2.112: 51, 554, 556
1.72: 534 1.453: 442 2.126: 513
1.87: 236 1.455: 559 2.144: 411
1.101: 473 1.459: 326, 332 2.183: 486
1.103–104: 266 1.461–66: 334 2.167: 350
1.106: 423 1.464: 326 2.184: 523
1.114–15: 458 1.465–66: 334 2.192: 392
1.115: 458, 466 1.466: 339, 531 2.196: 561
1.125, 126: 369 1.472–74: 526 2.204–206: 454
1.137: 372 1.472: 349 2.205: 233
1.141: 517 1.483: 51, 388 2.216–19: 228
1.149: 360 1.486: 290 2.232: 224
1.154: 238 1.487: 406 2.235: 310, 435
1.156: 363 1.493–94: 230 2.252: 392
1.158: 518 1.497: 456 2.262: 409
1.160: 472 1.500–501: 456 2.287: 542
1.171: 370 1.513: 492 2.302: 477
1.176: 561 1.518–23: 33 2.306: 565
1.180: 472 1.528–30: 488 2.334: 52
1.218: 442 1.528: 554 2.335: 527
1.222: 481 1.533: 456 2.384: 427
1.230: 395 1.537: 440 2.393: 59 n. 25
1.233–39: 454 1.539: 462 2.420: 566
1.233: 430 1.540: 440 2.422: 326, 332
1.234–39: 528 1.550: 448 2.424–29: 334
1.236: 321 1.592: 387 2.427: 326
1.246: 335 1.597: 526 2.428–29: 334
1.248: 407 1.601: 387, 391 2.429: 531
1.252: 397, 406 1.603: 280 2.449: 515
1.268: 131 n. 5, 263 1.607: 490 2.455–83: 265
1.274: 140 n. 46, 479 1.608: 268 2.462: 574
1.275–84: 140 n. 46 1.611: 456 2.467: 288, 308
1.292: 500 2.2: 349, 411–12 2.476: 513
1.315: 565 2.12–15: 472 2.484–93: 218
1.324: 32, 372 2.16–17: 396 2.485–86: 390
1.326: 460 2.26: 234 2.486: 32, 54, 431
1.338–39: 518 2.28–32: 472 2.491: 523
1.338: 477 2.35: 312 2.506: 53, 145, 301, 378
1.342: 575 2.38: 266 2.507: 304
1.354: 457 2.44: 292 2.519: 374
1.359: 354–55 2.55: 562 2.527: 353
1.370: 407 2.58: 458 2.532: 288
684 Index Locorum
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 3.228: 396 4.453: 555

2.537: 304 3.241: 408 4.455: 552
2.566: 313 3.258: 542 4.460: 267
2.592: 490 3.265: 51 4.476: 518
2.599–600: 504, 520 3.268: 464 4.484: 338
2.605: 221 3.276: 220 4.485: 375
2.624: 313 3.277: 312 4.508: 17 n. 40
2.653: 532 3.280: 477 4.526: 336
2.655: 513 3.281–86: 579 4.531: 514
2.658: 330 3.316: 340 4.533: 297
2.660: 561 3.320: 220 5.5: 62 n. 44, 354
2.664: 267 3.326: 490 5.15: 441
2.679, 693: 313 3.328: 444 5.62: 246
2.695: 308 3.386: 388 5.64: 534
2.697: 73 n. 80 3.387–89: 436 5.89–90: 466
2.699: 509 3.432: 411 5.95: 407
2.705: 221 3.438: 367 5.112: 368
2.722: 397 3.442: 523 5.115: 442
2.735: 350 3.352: 362 5.155: 514
2.761: 512 3.371: 345 5.161–62: 248
2.766: 315 3.376: 518 5.162: 247
2.776: 318 3.381–82: 461 5.183: 392
2.783: 533 3.396: 345 5.185–86: 356
2.818: 391 3.445: 224 5.186: 398, 444
2.837: 373 3.446: 504 5.196: 318
2.860: 362 4.6: 276 5.210: 288
2.861: 461 4.42: 466 5.213: 243
2.869: 350 4.48–49: 343 5.256: 395
2.874: 362 4.49: 438 5.271: 491
3.2: 504 4.145: 233 5.274–75: 375
3.11: 431 4.149: 335 5.276: 384
3.14: 388 4.167: 509 5.277: 464
3.21, 30: 407 4.186: 339 5.279: 373
3.35: 504 4.227: 332 5.280: 440
3.36: 408 4.280: 561 5.284: 368
3.39: 432 4.301–309: 556 5.333: 466
3.57: 254 4.309: 264 5.337: 333, 374
3.61: 521 4.343: 504 5.385–91: 233
3.63: 364 4.353: 375 5.385–87: 496
3.76–77: 396 4.357: 450 5.386: 361
3.105: 330 4.383: 73 n. 80 5.391: 361
3.118: 440 4.386: 330, 370 5.396: 375
3.121: 227 4.402: 367 5.397: 236
3.139: 504 4.409: 441 5.399: 334
3.155: 472 4.412: 527 5.401: 519
3.167: 532 4.431: 475 5.416: 471
3.171: 364 4.437: 505 5.419: 462
3.208: 458 4.443: 257 5.421: 475
3.226: 532 4.447: 268 5.431–32: 375
Index Locorum 685
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 6.211: 479 7.464: 375
5.442: 508 6.234–36: 498 7.466: 514
5.443–44: 407 6.235: 516 7.473: 375
5.444: 407 6.245: 301 7.476: 349
5.445: 491 6.311: 566 7.478: 266, 486
5.463: 561 6.339: 554 7.479: 355
5.448: 415 6.343: 417 8.2: 224
5.485: 555 6.352: 466 8.10: 491
5.492: 367 6.368: 362 8.12–13: 54, 420
5.512: 415 6.371: 227 8.13: 371, 417
5.521: 366 6.380: 223 8.15: 243
5.532: 466 6.383–84: 400 8.26: 541
5.557: 461 6.422: 62 n. 41 8.38: 33
5.569: 395 6.447: 59 n. 25 8.39–40: 33
5.613: 370, 452, 460 6.451–52: 400 8.40: 33
5.628: 532 6.477: 315 8.69: 541
5.638: 533 6.490: 306–307 8.75: 355
5.646: 362 6.504: 408 8.80: 465
5.649: 264 6.517: 384 8.127: 475
5.658: 368 7.23: 50, 384 8.140: 507
5.693: 453 7.39: 411 8.141: 333, 536
5.694: 331 7.46: 442 8.164: 363, 364
5.697: 322 7.50: 411 8.170: 355
5.708: 515 7.54–55: 396 8.175: 536
5.715: 434 7.103: 408 8.223: 235
5.756: 492 7.159–60: 140 n. 46 8.227: 461
5.762: 475 7.164: 360 8.231: 393
5.774: 490 7.171: 340 8.236: 475
5.781: 330 7.184: 526 8.242: 559
5.783: 460 7.202: 220 8.247: 340
5.798: 471 7.218: 411 8.250: 565
5.800: 232 7.226: 392 8.257: 548
5.848: 514 7.255: 297 8.262: 360
6.2: 355 7.257: 395 8.280: 442
6.8: 532 7.273: 275 8.281: 429
6.10: 267 7.277–78: 360 8.285: 367
6.19: 489 7.285: 388, 411 8.294: 522
6.47–48: 370 7.302: 556 8.297: 396
6.89: 417 7.318: 531 8.331: 409
6.99: 373 7.337: 301 8.344: 362
6.112: 586 7.350–51: 544 8.421: 311
6.122: 384 7.354: 473 8.450–51: 557
6.123: 392 7.358: 60 8.463: 460
6.133: 397, 406 7.365: 473 8.471: 239, 375
6.144: 457 7.386: 464 8.473: 555
6.145: 561 7.421–23: 477 8.477: 472
6.157: 51 7.422: 378 8.485: 286
6.161: 224 7.426: 347 8.488: 50, 141, 369
6.175–76: 230 7.446: 375 8.505: 312
686 Index Locorum
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 9.550–51: 467 10.478: 563

8.508: 349 9.554: 562 10.483: 393
8.538: 477 9.564: 552 10.502: 563
8.545: 312 9.582: 63 n. 51, 243, 406 10.517: 408
8.556: 315 9.593: 349 10.520: 488
8.564: 318 9.609: 322 10.532: 355
9.17: 220 9.640: 331 10.535: 355
9.19: 556 10.2: 349 10.564: 308
9.63: 310 10.4: 281, 387 11.1–3: 377
9.64: 342 10.11–12: 249 11.24: 524
9.86: 297 10.13: 504 11.26: 386
9.90: 457 10.19: 246 11.39: 386
9.96–99: 454 10.22: 292 11.48: 537
9.115–61: 476 10.28: 281 11.62: 236
9.132: 430 10.34: 444 11.75–77: 456
9.154: 452 10.36: 384 11.80: 472
9.158: 293 10.43: 368 11.89: 387
9.179–81: 485 10.58: 523 11.104–110: 497
9.182: 463 10.89: 322 11.105: 497
9.183: 379 10.91: 411 11.171: 261
9.186–91: 7 10.132: 292 11.179–80: 362
9.186–87: 269 10.133: 416 11.181: 361
9.186: 505, 537 10.139: 503 11.192–93: 544
9.212–13: 349 10.155: 268 11.218–20: 218
9.214: 347 10.200: 555 11.218: 17 n. 40
9.225–306: 140 10.202: 563 11.221: 532
9.227: 457 10.231: 408 11.248: 407
9.232: 315 10.251–53: 310 11.270: 440
9.236: 526 10.252: 61 n. 32 11.275: 461
9.301–302: 138 n. 43 10.259: 394 11.289: 463
9.308–14: 232 10.264: 264 11.308: 406
9.309: 472 10.265: 486 11.330: 534
9.348–49: 515 10.267: 65, 263, 333, 374 11.359: 322
9.359: 375 10.284: 442 11.364: 528
9.372: 360 10.285: 518 11.389–92: 305
9.394: 440 10.298: 335 11.403–407: 344
9.404–405: 136, 407 10.303: 555 11.429: 266, 442
9.404: 243 10.321–31: 529 11.453: 59 n. 25
9.441: 315 10.329–31: 430 11.472: 518
9.443: 139 10.334: 268 11.482: 360
9.456: 397 10.362: 468 11.512: 312
9.466: 51, 331, 385, 579 10.365: 361 11.517: 312
9.488: 436 10.384: 517 11.522: 442
9.509: 442 10.405: 517 11.527: 444
9.516: 541 10.443: 361 11.548–55: 437
9.525: 541 10.452: 362 11.551: 52, 281
9.533: 456 10.454–45: 456 11.552: 264
9.539: 580 10.469: 335 11.575: 407
9.550–53: 468 10.472: 537 11.581: 407
Index Locorum 687
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 12.300–301: 373 13.372: 267
11.586: 461 12.300: 342 13.377: 555
11.605: 384 12.333: 414 13.493: 316
11.624: 223 12.337: 235 13.444: 555
11.633: 335 12.338: 355 13.473: 449
11.647: 360 12.342: 440 13.496: 275
11.670–705: 316 12.345: 59 n. 29 13.516: 394
11.671–72: 427 12.358: 59 n. 29 13.521: 555
11.672: 233 12.375: 238 13.524: 498
11.677–78: 457 12.391: 249 13.547: 368
11.678: 289 12.413: 366 13.548: 467
11.695: 442 12.429: 349 13.565: 50
11.696: 438 12.439: 461 13.638: 523
11.702: 233 12.466: 266 13.651–52: 468
11.706: 448 13.15: 261, 355 13.677: 379
11.716: 436 13.18: 355 13.687: 444
11.770: 554 13.20–21: 309 13.704: 450
11.777: 483 13.27: 491 13.745: 428
11.782: 489 13.43: 379 13.758: 330
11.793–803: 140 n. 46 13.53: 290 13.769: 435
11.819: 517 13.59: 379 13.786: 522
12.35: 504 13.68–75: 464 13.809: 411
12.41–50: 344 13.71–72: 398 14.16–22: 305
12.44: 264 13.71: 290 14.20–22: 281
12.53: 362, 466 13.81–83: 375 14.20: 281
12.62: 308 13.83: 379 14.44: 555
12.68: 457 13.99: 398 14.49: 398
12.85: 538 13.113: 255 14.54: 457
12.137: 238 13.120: 435 14.102: 373
12.192: 275 13.125: 379 14.113: 479
12.200: 362 13.139: 257 14.122–24: 370
12.201: 358 13.149: 461 14.153: 456
12.204: 345 13.158: 355 14.158: 332
12.218: 362 13.162: 297 14.166–86: 404
12.219: 358 13.197: 391 14.186: 292
12.232: 60 13.202: 345 14.225–30: 309
12.236: 556 13.212: 123, 357 14.257: 370
12.237: 396 13.284: 466 14.274: 477
12.238: 472 13.287: 390 14.294: 523
12.240: 371, 421 13.291: 370 14.343: 409
12.255: 333, 536 13.297: 515 14.358: 536
12.260: 257 13.303: 442 14.385: 396
12.263: 268 13.315: 442 14.394–401: 265
12.278: 264 13.319–20: 306 14.173: 243
12.280: 563 13.339: 462 14.174: 322
12.283: 53, 339 13.343: 221 14.217: 562
12.287, 296: 264 13.344: 471 14.226: 288
12.297: 393 13.360: 293 14.242: 411
12.299–308: 344 13.368: 556 14.248: 306
688 Index Locorum
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 15.144: 222 16.105: 274

14.271: 555 15.152–53: 281 16.112: 17 n. 40
14.272–73: 430 15.161: 225 16.121: 457
14.298: 253 15.174: 379 16.123: 61 n. 33
14.311: 378 15.177: 225 16.129: 420
14.315–28: 228 15.187–93: 371 16.151: 288
14.315: 523 15.189–92: 509 16.179–86: 221
14.327: 373 15.191: 313 16.181: 440
14.328: 504 15.195: 485 16.183: 307
14.334: 249 15.201: 379 16.199: 460
14.347: 50, 248 15.202: 460 16.208: 342
14.348: 318 15.212: 571 16.219: 450
14.350–51: 398 15.214: 498 16.227: 306
14.355: 379 15.219: 353 16.233–34: 220
14.396: 524 15.222: 379 16.236: 442
14.400: 507 15.244: 50 16.238: 559
14.404: 367 15.247: 392 16.246: 504
14.410: 257 15.273: 492 16.277: 52
14.412: 345 15.286: 399 16.346–47: 468
14.415: 342 15.309: 315 16.360: 398
14.433–34: 490 15.323: 438 16.375: 406
14.436: 322 15.324: 49 n. 17 16.381: 287
14.445: 368 15.325: 475 16.384–93: 354
14.490: 221 15.327: 333, 536 16.408: 331
14.499: 411 15.346–51: 556 16.435–38: 281
15.2: 457 15.351: 63 n. 52 16.435: 281
15.5: 456 15.362–63: 467 16.437: 552
15.18–19: 361 15.377: 355 16.438: 362
15.19–20: 496 15.379: 355 16.488: 398
15.36–46: 428 15.412: 539 16.498–99: 438
15.36–38: 482 15.423: 349 16.506: 332
15.37–38: 429 15.434: 467 16.596: 370
15.37: 430 15.447: 515 16.613: 555
15.39: 428, 429 15.474: 297 16.632: 518
15.41–44: 429 15.479: 444 16.640: 368
15.41–43: 420 15.547: 61 n. 34 16.642: 524
15.47: 390, 429 15.559: 518 16.657: 548
15.50: 51, 532 15.607–608: 266 16.658: 454
15.53: 427 15.618–19: 492 16.670: 416
15.54: 225 15.648: 52 16.680: 416
15.75: 554 15.690: 248 16.682: 235
15.80–83: 263 15.693: 355 16.691: 247
15.80: 264 15.710: 450 16.698–99: 362
15.93: 527 15.715: 509 16.710–11: 407
15.97: 563 15.730: 261 16.711: 407
15.106: 472 16.7–9: 365 16.728: 378
15.112: 555 16.35: 492 16.730: 536
15.124: 362 16.85: 57, 453 16.752: 461
15.134: 364 16.101–102: 375 16.790: 356, 398
Index Locorum 689
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 18.23–26: 349 18.570: 275, 524, 545
16.792: 276 18.23: 464 18.573: 393
16.794: 274 18.48: 223 18.577: 393
16.805: 504 18.95: 437 18.583: 335
16.830: 461 18.107–108: 518 18.600: 321
16.843: 422 18.117: 330 18.603: 524, 538
16.867: 287 18.124: 471 18.609: 272
17.12: 373 18.136: 477 19.1–3: 377
17.20–21: 400 18.140: 353 19.1–2: 377
17.24: 330 18.157: 360 19.27: 262
17.54: 449 18.162: 437 19.30: 373
17.61–62: 248 18.175: 536 19.62: 362
17.62: 247 18.177: 345 19.68: 420
17.90–106: 344 18.184: 529 19.70: 373
17.100–106: 281 18.210: 387 19.92–93: 356
17.106: 281 18.239–42: 311 19.97: 472
17.171: 398 18.268: 63 n. 46 19.108: 562
17.175: 355 18.308: 304 19.112: 472
17.187: 330 18.312: 527 19.121: 580
17.228: 370 18.321: 290, 373 19.127: 562
17.244: 236 18.323: 254 19.150: 466
17.247: 461 18.327: 341 19.162: 387
17.251: 523 18.336: 492 19.188: 555
17.267: 450 18.357: 443 19.195: 428
17.288: 457 18.363: 527 19.207: 387
17.315: 467 18.372: 324 19.222: 267
17.322: 407 18.379: 361 19.229: 450
17.435: 264 18.380: 268 19.242: 266
17.464: 62 n. 42, 242 18.384–90: 412 19.247: 522
17.492: 444 18.391: 359 19.281: 464
17.520–23: 333 18.398: 449 19.285: 345
17.529: 555 18.409, 412: 324 19.289: 373
17.551: 356, 398 18.414: 471 19.329: 542
17.561: 388 18.468: 324 19.333: 243
17.566: 536 18.469: 540 19.344: 393
17.595: 355 18.470: 324 19.350: 537
17.607: 297 18.471: 322 19.365–67: 266
17.649–50: 350 18.482: 268 19.365: 274
17.657–64: 437 18.496: 483 19.377: 449
17.660: 52, 280 18.504: 62 n. 42, 242 19.408: 555
17.661: 264 18.507–508: 453 20.12: 268
17.674–75: 471 18.522: 444 20.15: 492
17.679–80: 265 18.524–25: 393 20.16: 580
17.720: 450 18.524: 385 20.32: 442
17.736–37: 470 18.528: 290 20.34–35: 222
17.748: 461 18.549: 54, 387 20.34: 379
17.752: 394 18.555: 294 20.51: 509
18.1: 470 18.561: 50, 301 20.66: 355
18.3: 393 18.569: 505 20.67ff.: 21
690 Index Locorum
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 21.204: 318 22.222: 322

20.70: 308 21.221: 373 22.249: 384
20.72: 216, 222 21.259: 257 22.254: 481
20.73: 348 21.309: 59 n. 29 22.255: 477
20.94: 362 21.316–17: 400 22.263: 387
20.142: 225 21.335: 66 n. 63 22.265: 368
20.143: 362 21.346–49: 354 22.276: 552
20.150: 398 21.347: 45, 349 22.281: 360, 431
20.177: 384 21.351: 318 22.317: 226
20.200–202: 32, 53, 365–66 21.364: 507 22.327: 503
20.205: 466 21.366–67: 322 22.337: 422
20.211–12: 517 21.401: 348 22.377: 472
20.220–22: 370 21.413: 486 22.391: 517
20.223: 247, 342 21.427: 472 22.395: 266
20.241: 479 21.435: 378 22.441: 456
20.307: 330 21.438: 243 22.442: 223, 370
20.344: 399 21.448: 385, 579 22.444: 426
20.351–52: 399 21.455: 321 22.468: 361
20.358: 405 21.489–91: 445 22.475: 322
20.371–72: 470 21.504–508: 54, 448 22.476: 506
20.372: 375 21.505: 243 22.478: 370
20.431–33: 32, 53, 365 21.508: 457, 492 22.480: 452
20.459: 514 21.509–10: 448 22.481: 421
20.470: 335 21.511: 307 22.503: 294
20.495: 238 21.512–13: 448 23.22: 492
21.1–2: 490 21.514–15: 376 23.51: 371
21.8: 378 21.515: 378 23.68: 442
21.20: 393 21.538: 378 23.71: 362
21.49: 247, 407 21.555: 492 23.78–79: 511
21.51: 486 21.570: 536 23.82: 571
21.56: 371 21.577: 334 23.138: 488
21.58: 397 21.593: 52 23.166: 51, 331, 385, 579
21.60–65: 281 21.598: 517 23.174: 493
21.60–63: 399 21.599: 149 23.208: 308
21.64–73: 457 21.604: 149 23.227: 406
21.79: 397, 516 22.9: 405 23.228: 61 n. 33
21.89: 492 22.15: 54 23.233: 455
21.97: 457 22.28: 226 23.245: 515
21.108: 371 22.34: 235 23.260: 307
21.121: 472 22.63: 461 23.265–66: 314
21.123–25: 421 22.65: 362 23.302: 313
21.123–24: 421 22.71: 483 23.353: 340
21.129: 461 22.77: 50 23.364: 388
21.143: 348 22.130–31: 281 23.369: 233, 541
21.149: 384 22.135: 477 23.392–93: 549
21.150: 360 22.141: 351, 471 23.396: 542
21.152: 457 22.183–84: 33 23.438: 435
21.181: 336 22.184: 33, 532 23.453: 59 n. 25
21.187: 479 22.209: 454
Index Locorum 691
Homerus, Il. (cont.) 24.361: 492 1.152: 524
23.535: 472 24.374–76: 390 1.155: 506
23.584: 379 24.379: 388 1.165: 370
23.614: 346 24.380: 517 1.169: 517
23.632–33: 466 24.387: 392 1.170: 360
23.634: 526 24.440: 222 1.179: 427
23.664: 532 24.444: 515 1.180–81: 479
23.675: 362 24.445–46: 235 1.184: 375
23.678: 313 24.445: 282 1.193: 376, 392
23.703, 705: 516 24.457: 222 1.214: 427
23.739: 471 24.460: 405 1.218: 264
23.764: 290 24.503–506: 138 n. 43 1.228: 370
23.773: 361 24.512: 370 1.242: 293
23.806: 335 24.535: 518 1.273: 477
23.845: 393 24.616: 549 1.274: 406
23.854–58: 556 24.621: 416 1.276: 387
23.859: 330 24.622: 537 1.282–83: 519–20
23.876: 503 24.624: 531 1.300: 492
23.885: 308 24.634: 384 1.328: 519
24.24: 233, 289 24.638: 362 1.337: 527
24.34: 340 24.644: 278 1.343: 429
24.39–45: 344 24.656: 517 1.346: 365
24.40: 466 24.679–81: 282 1.356: 306–307
24.54: 305 24.679: 222, 281 1.373: 472
24.69–70: 343 24.682: 442 1.374: 472
24.70: 438 24.692–93: 490 1.405: 392
24.109: 289 24.700: 398 1.409: 253
24.119: 527 24.713: 387 1.421: 524
24.142: 472 24.768: 367 1.438: 486
24.156–57: 400 24.782: 238 1.443: 349
24.160: 504 2.48: 361
24.197: 517 Od. 2.55: 476
24.211: 580 1.1: 216, 217, 223, 232 2.66: 367
24.227: 523 1.2: 350 2.78: 459, 491
24.239: 363 1.7: 441 2.92: 52, 279, 440
24.245: 461 1.26–27: 456 2.97: 132 n. 10
24.261: 43, 252 1.27: 317 2.103: 343, 391
24.264: 390 1.34: 441 2.139: 472
24.308: 220 1.38: 289 2.146–47: 440
24.315: 340, 565 1.47: 446 2.150: 233
24.323: 483 1.56: 51, 451, 454 2.165: 364
24.333–54: 560 1.57–58: 141 n. 50 2.181–82: 565
24.335: 442 1.68: 379 2.203: 459
24.340–41: 31, 53, 296 1.86: 223, 450, 476 2.204: 466
24.340: 292 1.92: 51, 331, 385, 579 2.209: 464
24.343–44: 234, 558 1.96: 292 2.213: 51, 388
24.343: 131 n. 6, 393 1.103: 483 2.216–17: 520
24.345: 440 1.108: 247 2.224: 473
24.360: 222 1.151: 425 2.247: 370
692 Index Locorum
Homerus, Od. (cont.) 3.400: 373 4.486: 517

2.252: 406 3.412: 455 4.504: 395
2.262: 428, 442 3.428: 370 4.514: 361
2.265: 466 3.433: 521 4.515: 552
2.272: 266 3.440: 308 4.525: 492
2.273: 566 3.444: 335 4.529: 520
2.308: 397 3.455: 335 4.566: 466
2.316: 373 3.458–63: 334 4.468: 388
2.318: 566 3.470: 334 4.574: 61 n. 32
2.355: 519 3.476: 390 4.575: 243
2.377: 554 4.6: 556 4.599: 397, 406
2.386: 457 4.15: 243 4.603: 318
2.392: 455 4.19: 524 4.605: 466
2.404: 466 4.20: 483 4.609–11: 437
2.406: 290 4.63: 561 4.620–21: 375
2.412: 396 4.44: 370 4.656: 428
[2.429]: 51, 388 4.88: 342, 387 4.685: 438
3.1–3: 477 4.99: 542 4.702: 397
3.3: 455 4.112: 66 n. 64, 397 4.720: 370
3.9: 326 4.114: 432 4.733: 442
3.30: 290 4.144: 66 n. 64, 397 4.762: 442
3.32: 261 4.146: 281 4.767: 442
3.40: 326 4.149: 398 4.802: 353
3.55: 379 4.153: 432 4.838–39: 353
3.57: 333, 536 4.156: 373 4.843: 281
3.65–66: 334 4.189: 472 5.1–3: 377, 456
3.66: 339 4.245: 444 5.1–2: 377
3.73: 233 4.253: 562 5.4: 457
3.92–94: 388 4.264: 466 5.25: 372
3.128: 450 4.291, 316: 373 5.43–49: 560
3.138: 387 4.318: 53, 339 5.44–45: 31, 53, 296
3.151: 281 4.320: 51, 331, 385, 579 5.47–48: 558
3.162–65: 478 4.322–24: 388 5.55–77: 403
3.163: 360 4.333–40: 248 5.57–74: 225
3.166: 486 4.336: 519 5.57–58: 403
3.189: 457 4.338: 247 5.58–59: 403
3.194: 266 4.347–48: 565 5.58: 403
3.198: 492 4.352: 565 5.59–75: 403
3.207: 441 4.379: 388 5.59–61: 403, 405
3.250: 392 4.383: 427 5.59–60: 342
3.263–64: 141 n. 50 4.399: 427 5.63–64: 403
3.292: 490 4.406: 342 5.65–67: 403
3.303: 266 4.413: 438 5.65: 396
3.308: 492 4.417: 373, 462 5.70–71: 403
3.375: 389 4.429: 61 n. 32 5.72: 288
3.382–83: 314 4.441: 342 5.75–76: 403
3.385: 442 4.442, 446: 342 5.85–96: 412
3.386: 529 4.455: 54, 291, 520 5.87–88: 360
3.399: 278 4.462: 440 5.97: 53, 359, 403
Index Locorum 693
Homerus, Od. (cont.) 6.188: 244 8.38: 472
5.123: 456 6.228: 314 8.60: 61 n. 34
5.146: 481 6.234: 521 8.67: 537
5.148: 440 6.239: 227 8.73–82: 271
5.164: 304 6.293: 50 8.80: 243, 397, 406, 407
5.166: 457 6.321–22: 378 8.99: 252
5.178: 430, 554 6.324: 442 8.105: 537
5.193: 290 6.328: 442 8.134: 458
5.198: 395 6.330: 541 8.142: 411
5.212: 458 7.13: 330 8.179: 541
5.230: 416 7.21: 457, 492 8.184: 373
5.234: 321 7.35: 468 8.248–49: 426
5.243–62: 259 7.36: 264 8.262–63: 275
5.267: 457 7.38: 290 8.266–366: 272, 277
5.277: 358 7.60: 441 8.266–68: 509
5.290: 399 7.79: 288 8.266: 506, 507
5.294: 61 n. 32 7.81: 353 8.268: 277
5.328–32: 354 7.83: 243 8.272: 396
5.337: 565 7.85: 243 8.274–75: 293
5.338: 442 7.89: 243 8.276: 272
5.340: 364 7.92: 268 8.302: 312, 359, 480
5.390–91: 230 7.94: 317 8.304: 483
5.390: 223 7.103: 370 8.308–11: 478
5.410: 331 7.127–28: 338 8.322–23: 222
5.445: 369, 392 7.127: 482 8.322: 379
5.446: 367 7.130: 406 8.325: 483
5.456: 293 7.135: 243, 406 8.327: 520
5.458: 322 7.136–38: 234 8.333–34: 375
5.481: 554 7.137: 289 8.334: 216
5.488–91: 67, 408 7.151–52: 420 8.335–42: 26
5.488: 502 7.153: 467 8.335: 49, 117, 558
6.9–10: 301 7.160: 467 8.336: 361
6.16: 458 7.168: 360 8.350: 379
6.20: 354 7.181: 523 8.390: 315
6.21: 442 7.186: 220 8.416: 444
6.38: 416 7.210: 455, 458 8.424: 315
6.54: 251 7.238: 360 8.429: 217, 524
6.76: 457 7.241–42: 390 8.448: 361
6.94: 490 7.251–52: 478 8.487–91: 513
6.101: 227, 524 7.261–62: 230 8.480–81: 518
6.109: 314 7.265: 416 8.488: 141, 520
6.122: 322 7.283: 61 n. 32 8.489: 7 n. 13
6.123: 350 7.288: 349 8.492–93: 334, 584
6.126: 373 7.301: 476 8.498: 51, 519, 584
6.133–34: 373 7.332–33: 462 8.499–520: 271
6.148: 364 7.334–35: 375 8.512: 334
6.152: 458 7.336: 278 8.516: 461
6.164: 507 8.4: 529 8.520: 443
6.183: 387 8.11: 220 8.548: 364, 365
694 Index Locorum
Homerus, Od. (cont.) 9.427: 497 10.389: 393, 559

8.572: 517 9.440: 397 10.406: 343
9.6–10: 522, 538 9.444: 331 10.411: 316
9.6: 522 9.445: 562 10.415: 392
9.7: 504 9.449: 478 10.433: 401
9.22: 315 9.456: 387 10.448: 367
9.25–27: 365 9.461: 331 10.462: 255
9.46: 51, 331, 579 9.465: 564 10.463: 293
9.47: 235 9.474: 462 10.466, 475: 343
9.53: 421 9.507: 519 10.476: 391
9.58: 311 9.508: 532 10.507: 304
9.69: 61 n. 32 9.509: 534 10.508: 362
9.97: 318 9.514: 360 10.511: 348
9.110–11: 304 9.519: 479 10.517: 323
9.113: 350 9.528: 379 10.520: 573
9.122: 466 9.529: 479 10.538: 373
9.141: 338 9.536: 442 10.541: 456
9.142–43: 582 9.542: 559 10.543: 416
9.155: 263 9.556: 391 10.549: 51
9.158: 293 10.34: 375 10.550: 343
9.161: 391 10.72: 420 11.8: 223
9.165: 350 10.85: 416 11.13: 378
9.174: 373 10.87–88: 492 11.15–16: 312
9.205: 288 10.105: 251 11.25: 323
9.210: 342, 343 10.115: 266 11.28: 573
9.214: 360 10.136: 223 11.29: 422
9.221: 338 10.147: 504 11.35: 493
9.233–34: 555 10.162–63: 468 11.36: 323
9.233: 379 10.166–69: 497 11.57: 371, 421
9.241: 555 10.166: 497 11.108: 247
9.243: 492 10.183: 391 11.155: 371
9.251: 492 10.191: 463 11.158: 362
9.254: 233 10.212–19: 401 11.170: 517
9.269: 392 10.212, 218: 401 11.179–80: 362
9.305: 555 10.222: 404 11.185–87: 454
9.308: 330 10.230: 404 11.185–86: 472
9.312: 62 n. 45 10.238: 393, 469, 559 11.189: 416
9.323: 468 10.267: 53 11.191: 331
9.364–66: 531 10.293: 393, 559 11.193: 392
9.372: 353 10.296: 366 11.198: 289
9.377: 366 10.319: 393, 559 11.206–208: 354
9.378: 361 10.329: 443 11.207: 235
9.382–86: 319 10.330: 232 11.220–21: 348
9.389–90: 322 10.331–32: 232 11.222: 235
9.390: 379 10.343: 70, 554 11.226: 464
9.396: 367 10.355, 357: 404 11.228: 455
9.405–14: 37 n. 18 10.358: 330 11.238: 342
9.409: 472 10.369: 404 11.241: 379
9.427–29: 497 10.381: 562 11.249–50: 228
Index Locorum 695
Homerus, Od. (cont.) 12.150: 223 13.225: 528
11.281–97: 316 12.159: 288 13.228–30: 390
11.289: 238, 331, 385 12.161: 361 13.254: 450
11.290: 330 12.178: 410 13.273: 457
11.292–93: 496 12.187: 505 13.293: 360
11.293: 361 12.194: 433 13.381: 52, 279
11.302: 553 12.200: 421 13.399: 357
11.311–20: 236 12.213: 517 13.409: 457
11.330: 287 12.251: 393, 559 13.429: 393
11.365: 509 12.259: 417, 561 14.2: 468, 488
11.400: 322 12.269, 274: 462 14.6–8: 301
11.413: 580 12.295: 486 14.21–38: 122
11.414: 387 12.298: 562 14.23: 292
11.422: 492 12.299: 438 14.28: 342
11.429: 266 12.306: 388 14.80: 522
11.445: 527 12.311: 411 14.104: 247
11.479: 348 12.315: 61 n. 32 14.110: 364
11.497: 410 12.324: 343 14.125: 54
11.527, 530: 471 12.332: 342 14.129: 432
11.531: 318 12.346: 355 14.164: 457
11.536: 275 12.348: 385 14.180: 397
11.539: 54, 240, 399 12.355: 247, 385 14.192: 427
11.557: 429 12.356–63: 325 14.194: 387
11.568–71: 454 12.359: 326 14.204: 479
11.568: 512 12.361–65: 334 14.206: 370
11.572: 398 12.369: 149, 322, 343 14.214: 267
11.573: 54, 399 12.375: 238 14.218: 364
11.574: 449 12.386: 455 14.243: 486
11.576: 373 12.390: 498 14.261: 235
11.580: 529 12.395–96: 288 14.263–64: 375, 453
11.601: 330, 398 12.429: 349, 477 14.286: 459
11.604: 271 12.431–32: 478 14.327–28: 578
11.606: 470 12.439–40: 454 14.349: 409
11.611: 386, 401 13.9: 504 14.385: 459
11.627–28: 478 13.23: 472 14.394: 477
11.635: 464 13.63: 406 14.409–10: 375
12.16: 448 13.71: 464 14.418–38: 327
12.28: 343 13.102: 397 14.427–33: 334
12.29: 392 13.105–116: 278 14.430–31: 334
12.50: 410 13.108: 416 14.431: 531
12.85: 351 13.127: 492 14.434: 113 n. 75
12.92: 264 13.165: 472 14.435: 216, 219
12.128: 247 13.169: 480 14.437–38: 340
12.130–31: 288 13.172: 519 14.444: 522
12.130: 289 13.196: 492 14.456: 342
12.132: 223 13.203: 459, 491 14.465: 435
12.136: 385 13.209: 398 14.479: 444
12.142: 456 13.217–18: 374 14.492: 422
12.143–44: 478 13.220: 463 14.494: 359
696 Index Locorum
Homerus, Od. (cont.) 16.212: 455 17.414: 442

14.500: 416, 486 16.213: 473 17.420: 436
14.502: 456 16.230: 533 17.425: 233
14.532: 580 16.245: 522 17.432–33: 375, 453
15.2: 444, 457 16.290: 322 14.457: 522
15.26: 529 16.308: 457 17.479: 437
15.45: 442 16.321–22: 375 17.485: 300
15.47: 390 16.395: 313, 457 17.513–21: 65
15.56: 456 16.423: 341, 477 17.518–19: 551
15.59–61: 408 16.425: 366 17.519: 524
15.60: 416 16.456: 393, 559 17.530: 114
15.64, 87: 373 17.17: 389 17.534: 476
15.89: 465 17.21: 475 17.542: 52, 503
15.140: 339 17.27: 355, 364 17.546–47: 441
15.150: 366 17.30: 243, 407 17.570: 387
15.167: 373 17.53: 518 15.573: 527
15.174: 491 17.57: 507 17.574: 396
15.178: 364 17.82: 364 18.6: 518
15.195: 555 17.120: 492 18.10: 361
15.202: 440 17.124–31: 248 18.11–12: 485
15.203: 555 17.127: 519 18.19: 244
15.209: 444 17.129: 247 18.55: 562
15.219: 390–91 17.139: 565 18.73: 361
15.222–55: 316 17.159: 364 18.89: 489
15.231–32: 496 17.161: 235 18.98: 410, 467
15.232: 361 17.184: 373 18.101: 362
15.245–46: 581 17.197: 444 18.102: 278
15.250: 456 17.204: 391 18.108: 444
15.266: 427 17.254: 355 18.156: 362
15.274: 542 17.257: 395 18.194: 524, 538
15.317: 429 17.258: 342 18.199–200: 472
15.319: 51, 498 17.261–62: 504 18.212–13: 141 n. 50
15.320: 333 17.261: 275 18.212: 523
15.352: 427 17.262–63: 506 18.239: 247
15.361–66: 468 17.262: 507 18.272–73: 374
15.369: 292 17.270–71: 18.283: 52, 279
15.436: 562 140–41 n. 49, 252 18.304: 524
15.444: 361 17.304: 471, 492 18.308–309: 323
15.473: 261 17.317: 381 18.338: 361, 437
15.507: 342 17.329: 370 18.361: 292
15.555: 355 17.339: 243 18.373: 460
16.6: 355 17.349: 472 18.386: 362
16.41: 243, 406–407 17.365: 526 18.389: 361, 437
16.53: 395 17.382–85: 20 n. 50 18.398: 467
16.113: 427 17.383–85: 247, 311 18.413: 457
16.148: 535 17.385: 519 19.9, 20: 322
16.154: 292 17.386: 462 19.31: 457
16.172: 393, 559 17.387: 410 19.35: 311
16.197–98: 306 17.413: 406 19.36: 399
Index Locorum 697
Homerus, Od. (cont.) 20.69: 387 22.202: 360
19.76: 436 20.72: 236 22.274–77: 316
19.91: 557 20.91: 456 22.281: 360
19.111: 304 20.93: 392 22.293: 275
19.142: 132 n. 10 20.102: 442 22.297: 462
19.148: 343 20.123: 330 22.308: 394
19.161: 333 20.129: 219 22.329–30: 349
19.162: 388 20.137: 492 22.332: 537
19.163: 519 20.161: 486 22.347–48: 520
19.178–79: 369–70 20.177: 462 22.347: 518
19.179: 370 20.180: 557 22.349: 493
19.198: 238 20.185: 373 22.376: 232
19.221–22: 390 20.206: 357 22.383: 349
19.246: 347 20.209: 388 22.412: 341
19.254: 255 20.221: 388 22.424: 367
19.255: 437 20.237: 507 22.468: 396
19.265–66: 224 20.258: 243, 407 22.470: 315
19.266: 224 20.266: 367 22.472: 345
19.276: 238 20.279: 334 22.478: 410
19.296–97: 578 20.280: 339 22.491: 255
19.314: 475 20.341: 466 22.500–501: 504
19.319: 456 20.367–68: 396 23.4: 442
19.368: 457 20.391: 457 23.11: 219
19.381: 398 20.393: 361 23.13: 367
19.394–97: 65, 233, 429 21.15–30: 316 23.33: 432
19.400: 66 21.24: 443 23.35: 219
19.422–23: 334 21.43: 443 23.40: 144, 424
19.423: 339, 531 21.46–48: 354 23.46: 468
19.424: 391 21.47: 353 23.49: 247
19.434: 378 21.49: 247, 288 23.59, 81: 219
19.435–36: 373 21.77: 518 23.88: 243, 407
19.436: 290 21.118: 416 23.128: 522
19.444: 355 21.123: 482 23.133: 537
19.453: 503 21.181: 330 23.136: 391
19.457–58: 257 21.253–54: 330 23.145: 524
19.469: 274 21.282: 373 23.164–65: 442
19.482: 219 21.295: 131 n. 5 23.165: 395
19.517: 521 21.299: 362 23.171: 219
19.542: 223 21.407: 270 23.185–86: 306
19.553: 318 21.411: 275 23.197: 486
19.567: 19 21.413: 355 23.201: 336
19.568: 401 21.429–30: 114 23.233: 252, 455
19.569: 368 21.430: 524 23.243–44: 456
19.579: 518 22.16: 503 23.243: 311
20.32: 442 22.83: 267 23.321: 451
20.46–47: 551 22.115: 360 23.331: 457
20.46: 527 22.141: 457 23.347: 456
20.47: 550–51, 559 22.169: 266 23.362: 477
20.60: 255 22.198: 456 23.366: 444
698 Index Locorum
Homerus, Od. (cont.) h.Hom. 2 (h.Dem.) 220: 51

24.1–10: 558 1: 217, 221, 572 224: 460
24.1: 220, 444 3: 355 228–30: 55, 257
24.2: 393 7: 288 228: 257
24.2–4: 131 n. 6 9: 498 230: 257
24.3–4: 234 11: 509 256–57: 572
24.13: 54, 240, 399 12: 394 259: 555
24.59: 416 13: 343 261: 51
24.62: 521 15–16: 260 277–78: 55, 281, 405
24.64: 508 15: 269 277: 408
24.66: 385 16: 254 278: 406
24.69: 549 21: 453 287: 330
24.77: 543 22–33: 518 292: 529
24.97: 362 24–26: 481 297: 355
24.98–99: 375 27: 453 311–12: 533
24.106: 509 28: 369 320: 514
24.118: 362 31: 452 322: 225
24.132: 132 n. 10 33–37: 467 324: 343
24.169: 421 36: 225 327–28: 533
24.184: 393 44–46: 351 331: 453
24.223–25: 382 55–56: 518 334: 355
24.224–25: 376 62: 312 337: 371
24.224: 380 63: 492 338: 491
24.226–27: 376 66: 529 346: 440
24.240: 462 71–72: 388, 518 348: 464
24.242: 376 80: 371 355: 224, 453
24.243: 457 82: 494, 543 377: 440
24.244: 376 85–87: 509 378: 544
24.248: 571 85: 371 380: 462
24.335: 442, 556 89: 396 385: 453
24.445: 405 92: 224 396: 368
24.305: 257, 313 93: 53, 339 399: 273
24.316: 349 101: 388 402: 371
24.349: 322 108: 478 406–33: 14
24.351: 475 113: 388 406: 475
24.468: 455 119: 392 407: 222
24.511: 375 120–21: 475 417: 288
24.526: 457 125: 233 426: 543
24.575: 308 131: 475 433: 225
141: 493 434: 387
Hymni Homerici 145: 314, 395 441: 355
h.Hom. 1: 29, 553 154: 537 446: 371
1–9: 220 158: 576 457: 255
1–7: 11 160: 429 460: 355, 452
3: 348 179: 529 461: 225
6–7: 228 196: 416 464: 371
12: 565 200: 293 466: 554
13–15: 488, 554, 554 214–15: 224 478: 572
217: 269 483–89: 581
Index Locorum 699
h.Hom. 2 (cont.) 185: 559 411: 462
483–84: 29 186–206: 546 412: 247
484: 225, 452, 546 186: 264, 309, 452 422: 288
486–89: 582 187: 225 423–24: 490
486: 572 194: 223 441: 62 n. 41, 73, 237, 288
489: 370 200: 289 443: 415
494: 583 201: 73, 237, 238, 434 448: 264, 309
202–203: 288 450: 444
h.Hom. 3 (h.Apol.) 202: 505 454: 233
titulus: 214 207–208: 217 456: 548
1–13: 435, 447, 546 207: 557 465: 458
1: 221, 407, 586 215: 486 478, 482: 355
2–13: 29 216: 286 491: 573
2: 370, 452 223: 548 501: 355
9–12: 532 224: 73 509: 573
11: 481 225: 404 513–19: 549
12–15: 359 229–38: 70, 71, 301 515: 358, 505
12–13: 528 230: 53–54 519: 505
19: 557 232: 233 520: 314
33: 350 246: 442 521: 488
37: 397, 406 249: 565 523: 355, 415
39: 350 252–53: 564 532: 521
46: 429 252: 450, 476 536–37: 70
49: 312 253: 355 542: 475
52: 355 256: 359 545: 384
79: 70, 554 257–74: 73, 570
87: 453 261: 55 h.Hom. 5 (h.Aphr.)
108: 462 265: 355 1–6: 240
117–18: 242 269: 55, 573 1–2: 221
119: 242 270: 55 1: 512, 554
123: 426 273: 55 2: 504
127–29: 356 286: 359 11: 472
128–9: 71 292: 450, 476 16: 307
128: 414 293: 355 19: 461
129–31: 249 296: 407 27: 429, 430
129: 361 304: 55, 73, 406 29: 438
131–32: 30, 72, 236, 305: 456 45: 504
243, 562 322: 360 53: 504
131: 73, 525, 530, 553 330: 317 58–67: 404
132: 450, 476 347: 369 58: 353, 453
146–50: 576 349–55: 70 59: 453
157: 317 360: 504 70–71: 401
160–61: 217 363–74: 14 70: 386
179: 288 363–69: 14 n. 31 78: 393
182–87: 549 364–68: 421 79: 430
182–85: 280 378: 442 84: 493
182: 373 397: 459 103: 315
183: 374 406: 357 116: 59 n. 25
184–85: 274 411–13: 241 118: 307
700 Index Locorum
h.Hom. 5 (cont.) h.Hom. 9: 217 25: 288

129: 440 9: 585 28–47: 110, 272
130: 507 28: 110, 216
136/136a: 576 h.Hom. 10 29: 111, 512
143: 504 5: 499, 524 30–31: 110
148: 439, 498 30: 221
151–52: 407 h.Hom. 12 31: 220
169: 308 1: 456 32: 317
193: 443 4: 529 33: 111, 216
200–238: 14 34: 110, 223
201: 458 h.Hom. 14: 217 36–37: 228
204: 370 3: 524 36: 111
208: 519 4: 386, 401 37: 110, 111, 249
218: 456 40–47: 435, 546
226: 456 h.Hom. 15 43: 111, 263
254: 251 1–3: 218 45–7: 111
257: 263 4–6: 576
258: 548 6–8: 581 h.Hom. 20
261: 549 7: 546 5: 581
262: 289
277: 573 h.Hom. 16 h.Hom. 21: 526
285: 404 1–2: 218 3: 537
290: 481
292–93: 584 h.Hom. 17 h.Hom. 22: 216
293: 585 3–4: 228 1: 277
6: 379
h.Hom. 6: 29, 214, 447, h.Hom. 18: 148 n. 74, 224
585 1–9: 215, 218 h.Hom. 23
1: 221 1–2: 220 3: 370
13: 524 2: 118
14–18: 435, 546 4–11: 156 h.Hom. 24
19: 150 n. 82 6: 156, 225 1–2: 406
10–11: 576 2: 397
h.Hom. 7: 216 11: 585 5: 150 n. 82
1: 277, 373 12: 9, 338, 558
2: 277 h.Hom. 25: 510
11: 561 h.Hom. 19: 29, 110–11,
12: 361 216 h.Hom. 26
13–14: 496 1: 111, 277, 498, 512 11: 304
13: 361 2: 110, 111, 228 12–13: 150 n. 82
35–36: 343 5–6: 111
38–42: 496 5: 543 h.Hom. 27
46: 401 10: 492 1: 307
54: 359–60 12–13: 308 7–10: 308
55: 443 15: 358, 521, 540, 551 13–19: 308
17–18: 247 18–20: 272
h.Hom. 8: 228 18: 505 19: 277
23–24: 111
23: 357
Index Locorum 701
h.Hom. 28 Iliu Persis 3.9.4: 330
1–4: 228 (Bernabé)
1: 529 4.8: 265 Lucianus
2: 66 n. 63 Astr.
4–5: 218 Ioannes Cinnamus 10: 269
13–15: 286 Epitom. (Meineke)
p. 160.13: 332 Cont.
h.Hom. 29 1: 487
2: 509 Ion Chius
3: 509 (IEG) DJud.
4: 438 32: 269 5: 393, 394
7–8: 228
7: 219 Isocrates DDeor.
8: 118, 558 4.20: 450 11: 97–100, 364
13: 49 4.49: 557 11.1: 97, 553
8.24: 290 11.4: 97–99, 269
h.Hom. 30 9.41: 275
4: 316 10.4: 453 DMar.
6: 572 13.9: 275 2.2: 330
13–14: 522 15.296: 450
18.20: 448 Icar.
h.Hom. 31: 217, 585 14: 471
2–4: 218 Isaeus
6: 223 3.68: 448 Pod.
14–16: 286 10.10: 448 3: 405
h.Hom. 32: 585 Isyllus Pseudol.

1: 396 (CA) 17: 251
17: 227 Paean
18: 223 52: 453 Salt.
19–20: 523 36: 510
Josephus
h.Hom. 33: 216 AJ Tim.
1: 277 5.204: 570 26: 492
5.238: 319
Iamblichus VH
Theol.Ar. (Klein) Libanius 1.23: 357
31: 409 Orationes (Reiske) 1.32: 320
11.23: 304 2.5: 433
Ibycus 31.20: 304
(PMGF) Lycophron
286.11: 509 Longinus 140: 293
S151.47–48: 431 27: 556 395: 565
1064: 382
Ilias Parva Longus
(Bernabé) 2.1.1: 315 Lysias
1: 223, 512 2.1.3: 315 1.17: 247
2.30.5: 337 12.6: 247
2.31.3: 337 33.7: 450
702 Index Locorum
Lysias, Fr. (Carey) Fr. (Körte-Thierfelder) 559–62: 87–88, 245, 258

197: 436 53.2: 305 559: 257
369.6: 412 884: 482 561–62: 88
561: 216
Macarius Menander Rhetor 562: 269
(Leutsch-Schneidewin) (Spengel)
6.88: 250 p. 340.15–21: 77 n. 5 Th.
20: 231
Macedonius Mesomedes 143: 382
(CA) (CA) 278: 357
Paean 7.1: 491 522: 559
3: 512 613: 335
Michael Apostolius 705–706: 262
Maiistas (Leutsch-Schneidewin) 705: 260
(CA) 2.77: 266 839: 559
6: 231 13.99d: 250 932: 543
Manetho Mimnermus Nicetas Choniates

1.93: 498 (IEG) Hist. (van Dieten)
6.198: 387 5.4: 338 p. 106.1: 332
6.1: 521 p. 364.37: 332
Marcus Sidonius 12: 286
16: 255 Nicomachus Gerasenus
FGrH (Jan)
Margites 578 F 5 (= 13 IEG): 510 p. 266: 89 n. 24
1.2: 523 p. 274.1–12: 269
Moschus
Matro 2.6: 331 Nonnus
(Olson-Sens) 2.91–92: 281, 552 D.
1.3: 507 2.96: 472 1.331: 107
1.79: 264 2.116: 491 1.337–40: 107–108
3.48: 395 1.337: 107
Maximus Astrologus 1.339: 107
5.107: 446 Musaeus 1.478: 506
Hero et Leander 2.27: 435
Menander Comicus 7: 441 2.172: 436
Dysc. 237: 441 3.371: 353
226: 245 4.68: 435
447: 374 Musaeus Epicus 4.358: 255
588: 374 (Bernabé) 4.375: 353
26T: 89 n. 24 5.485: 500
Kol. 5.551: 436
fr. 1 Körte: 239 Nicander 8.47: 498
Al. 9.36: 249
Sam. 163: 315 9.55–56: 486
596: 368 179: 543 9.56: 513
599: 436 258: 342 9.67: 436
273: 484 10.96: 360
385: 543 13.36: 441
Index Locorum 703
Nonnus, D. (cont.) 2.274: 461 H.
13.331–32: 405 3.80: 338 Proemium 22–23: 221
15.165: 500 3.90: 502 2.4: 482
15.255: 393 3.133: 395 2.12: 482
16.316: 303 3.282–83: 246 5.1: 315
17.385: 347 4.162: 386 11.1: 543
19.100–102: 506 4.176: 461 17.7: 509
23.262: 318 4.178: 461 18.2: 405
24.242: 506 4.369: 296 18.6: 509
28.204: 393 69.4: 56, 371
40.298: 405 Oracula Delphica 76.1–2: 510
41.5: 405 (Parke-Wormell/ Fonten- 77.1–2: 510
41.373: 246 rose) 78.6: 311
41.411: 541 1.5 (Q26.5): 221
42.131: 405 29.1 (Q7): 47 L.
31.3 (Q88.3): 46 151–54: 468
Par. 94.12 (Q146.12): 47 247: 406
14.110: 315 111.2 (L5): 46
202 (L40) 46 Fr. (Bernabé)
Novum Testamentum 216.1 (Q7.1): 47 975T II: 89 n. 24
Ev.Marc. 216.5 (Q7.5): 46 975 III–V: 89 n. 24
8.17–18: 305 317.1 (L80.1): 46
379.4 (L.164.4): 46 Paean Delphicus
Ev.Matt. 406.3 (L99.3): 46 (CA):
13.13: 305 408.7 (L100.7): 47 152 n. 88
470.2 (Q259.2): 47 20/21: 253
Oppianus Anazabrensis 517.2 (F13.2): 46
Hal. 607.3: 46 Pamprepius
1.125: 255 (GDRK)
2.436: 541 Oribasius 4.18: 269
2.516: 393 Coll. Med.
2.530: 331 25.1.13: 386 Panyassis
2.567: 457 (Bernabé)
2.655: 335 Ecl. 16.3: 486
3.121: 452 97.33: 293 16.14: 536
3.556: 374 16.17: 522
4.546: 263 [Orpheus] 16.19: 522
5.300: 461 A.
5.374: 457 2: 509 Paradoxographus Palati-
5.588: 536 383: 246 nus
626: 335 20: 269
Oppianus Apamensis 633: 291
C. 660: 535 Parthenius Mythographus
1.119: 42 982: 307 #E 7
1.183: 401 1147: 417 26.4: 338
1.517: 430–31 1299: 535
2.176–83: 228 1346: 388 Paulus Silentiarius
2.177: 255 Descriptio Ambonis (Veh)
2.255: 290 118: 268
704 Index Locorum
Pausanias Pherecrates VA
1.24.4: 514 (PCG) 2.8: 315
1.27.1: 293–94 5.4: 44 2.8.5: 570
1.28.10: 514 168.2: 465 2.11: 410
1.44.1: 290 5.4: 581
2.18.8–9: 137 n. 35 Pherecydes 5.15: 100 n. 49
2.19.7: 89 n. 24, 244 (FGrH)
2.31.10: 496 3 F 35: 315 VS
3.2.3: 290 3 F 49: 567 2.7: 386
3.7.3: 290 3 F 130: 96, 567
3.13.5: 528 3 F 131: 96, 315, 558, 567 Philostratus Junior
3.16.2–3: 300 Im.
4.36.2–3: 315 Philetas 5: 296
5.13.8: 349 Epigr. 25.4: 523 8: 358
5.14.8–10: 349
5.14.8: 325, 505 Philiscus Phoronis
5.18.4: 523 (PCG) (Bernabé)
5.27.8: 412 #Aφ (« : 86 4.1–2: 415
6.26.1: 575 5: 222
6.26.5: 220 Philo Judaeus
7.2.1: 137 n. 35 De Ebr. 22: 304 Phrynichus Comicus
7.20.4: 77 De Pl. 146: 304 (CPG)
7.22.2–3: 566 61.5: 425
8.14.10–11: 152 Philochorus
8.16.1: 220 (FGrH) Phylarchus
8.17.5: 105, 244 328 F85: 239 (FGrH)
8.30.6: 244 328 F 195: 567–68 81 F 61a: 254
8.32.2: 511, 523
8.35.4: 290 Philodamus Scarpheus Pindarus
8.36.10: 220 Paean I.
8.38.11: 543 1–3: 228 1.32–33: 301
9.11.7: 567 1.32: 251
9.20.3: 220 Philodemus 4.26–27: 308
9.26.5: 301 Piet. (Gomperz) 4.37: 301
9.29.2: 510 433 viii (p. 34): 418 4.55–57: 273, 504
9.29.4: 510 4.57: 540
9.30.1: 105 n. 60, 525 Philostratus Major 5.12: 368
9.34.3: 221 Her. 5.18: 45
9.37.1: 301 35.2: 386 6.37: 268
9.39.7: 567 6.66–69: 333–34
9.40.1–2: 570 Im. 6.74–75: 510
10.5.6: 537 1.11.4: 386 6a.4: 379
10.5.8: 245 1.26: 8.22: 379
10.5.9: 569–70 100–101, 220, 418, 5553 8.53: 462
10.19.4: 523 1.26.1: 101 8.55a: 419
1.26.3: 100, 412 8.59: 45
Phanocles 1.26.4: 100
(CA)
1.28: 338
Index Locorum 705
Pindarus (cont.) 3.33–35: 504 1.4: 506
N. 5.4–6: 325 1.12: 362
1.14: 554 5.10: 378 1.72: 437
1.19: 247 5.16: 45 1.93: 419
1.24–25: 395 6.7: 550 1.97: 331
1.25: 391 6.37: 374 2.67: 251
1.35–50: 314 6.38: 357 2.70–71: 269
1.37: 456 6.45–46: 569 2.82: 293
1.38: 356 6.65–66: 574 3.43: 400
1.50: 381 6.72: 518 3.46: 257
3.4: 247 6.77–80: 152, 220 3.54: 539
3.28: 521 6.97: 524 3.57: 45, 269
3.44: 264, 358 6.100: 221 3.67: 362
3.63: 446 7.6: 387 3.113–14: 308
3.76: 251 7.32: 405, 415 3.113: 247
4.13: 446 7.59: 415 4.3: 362
4.44: 531 7.65: 430 4.10: 446
4.57–58: 520–21 7.70–71: 286 4.28: 449
4.59: 364 8.3: 580 4.33: 456
5.18: 269 8.36: 322 4.60: 569
5.22–23: 273 8.41: 469 4.62: 236
5.24–25: 269 8.42: 540 4.114: 356
5.34: 554 8.59: 540 4.167: 562
5.38: 267 9.12: 374 4.242: 336
7.26–27: 267 9.15–16: 511 4.259: 362
7.54: 458 9.29–35: 236 4.260: 456
7.81: 577 9.33–34: 393 4.265: 357
8.30: 462 9.47: 523 4.273: 529
8.32–33: 435 9.79: 462 4.291: 455
9.4: 419 9.100: 458 5.91: 462
9.7–8: 504 10.24–25: 325 5.115: 539
9.13: 486 10.43–54: 325 6.23–24: 563
9.50: 20 n. 50 10.45: 548 6.30: 462
9.53: 362 10.48: 490 6.54: 570
11.1: 511 10.80: 469 8.33: 419
10.84: 267, 524 8.44: 458
O. 12.7: 557 8.54: 295
1.2: 467 13.27: 295 8.92: 410
1.53: 264 13.45–46: 392 9.5: 362
1.89: 391 13.72: 45 9.6: 452
1.92: 490 13.82: 469 9.21: 461
1.102: 524 13.84: 282 9.37: 123 n. 87
2.13: 490 14.1–4: 511 9.38: 446
2.14: 522 14.5: 442 9.43–49: 532
2.56: 458 14.24: 266 9.43–44: 531
2.80–81: 355 9.87: 305
2.83–85: 20 n. 52 P. 9.89: 308
3.1–5: 278 1.1–6: 531 10.36: 381
3.24: 45 1.1: 280 10.37–40: 522
706 Index Locorum
Pindarus, P. (cont.) 346b.4: 456 Prm.

10.38–39: 577 155e: 306
10.53–54: 570 Plato
11.4: 415 Ap. Phd.
11.9: 374 20c: 275 87d: 338
12.8: 293 95c: 338
Cra. 107c: 245
Fr. 392b: 368
33d.6: 409 398c: 571 Phdr.
52e.46–48: 308 407e: 22 n. 58 236d: 275
52f.5–6: 20 n. 50 244a–245a: 19 n. 47
52f.8: 437 Cri. 248a: 330
52f.16: 264 44b: 368 253e: 305
52f.54–56: 510 258d: 267
52f.58: 442 Euthd. 259c: 523
52f.127–28: 6 n. 10 275d: 510 260e: 522
52g.3: 415 301c: 329 267a: 267
52h.38: 45 270b: 522
52i.64: 446 Euthphr.
52k.36: 519 5a: 275 Phlb.
52m.7: 543 16a: 275 46b: 517
52m.9: 580
70b.6: 524 Grg. Prt.
70b.19: 449 462b-c: 522 313b: 350
75.13: 20 n. 50 469d: 412 321d: 539
78.1: 442 485d: 315 322c: 508
93.1: 461 511b: 305
94a.5–6: 20 n. 50 R.
94b.10–12: 217 Hp.Mi. 380c: 267
95: 220 365b: 232 398e: 540
95.2: 415 411a: 540
95.3: 523 Ion 427c: 487
97: 306 533e–534e: 19 n. 47, 575 435a: 319, 322
107a.4–5: 308 457a: 360
111.5: 262 Lg. 461d: 231
121.1–2: 217 656d: 540 637a-b: 538
122.7: 419 666b: 304
129.8–9: 405–406 681a: 383 Smp.
140a.61: 275, 280 700b: 217 176c: 245
150.1: 20 n. 50 775d: 471 177d: 526
152: 570 799a: 278 202e–203a: 571
156.1: 252, 446 829d: 521 212c: 247
165.2: 511 855d: 512 217a: 245
193.3: 356 877b: 306
199.3: 523 924c: 512 Tht.
211: 236 961b: 350 173d: 538
214: 491 179e: 517
231: 446 Men. 191d: 510
333a.13: 523 235c: 275 194d: 338
Index Locorum 707
Plato (cont.) Num. 13.8.2: 236
Ti. 8.10: 454
33a–b: 246 Porphyrius Tyrius
33c: 552 Rom. Antr.
45b–c: 266 8.7: 294 15–19: 576
63b: 269 9.5: 253 17: 238
88b: 305 18: 569
Moralia
[Plato] 16b: 454 in Harm. (Düring)
Ax. 42e: 453 p. 20: 47, 542
368a: 581 239a: 304
244a: 338 Proclus
Hipparch. 249e: 575 De mala subs.
231c: 450 267c: 290 14.17–18: 483
293f: 575
Min. 303d: 38, 338 H.
319e: 370 421b: 281 6.2: 483
435b-c: 564 6.14: 483
Plato Comicus 528e: 500
(PCG) 618d: 450 Protagoras
12: 446 640f: 304 (D.-K.)
182.6: 422 642e–644d: 340 3: 141 n. 53
189.17: 261 698e: 379 4: 389
712f: 252 10: 141 n. 53
Plutarchus 738f: 239
Aem. 743d: 510 Ptolemaeus
2.2: 454 829a: 308 Harm.
934c: 386 23: 269
Alex. 967c: 412
4: 405 968f: 338 Quintus Smyrnaeus
3.105: 405
Brut. Fr. 5.98: 562
1.5: 412 95: 328 6.105: 388
7.116: 290
Cam. [Plutarchus] 7.339: 254
15.2: 322 9e: 510 8.29: 500
13e: 305 12.201: 242
Cat. Mi. 12.449–50: 371
46.5: 294 Polemo Historicus 13.27: 438
(Müller) 14.393: 432
Cim. 83: 507
14.3: 290 Rhianus
Polyaenus (CA)
Dem. 6.52: 65 n. 61, 452 1.9: 333
18c: 450
Polybius Sannyrion
Mar. 3.104.6: 245 (PCG)
8.8: 253 8.15.2: 562 3: 394
13.4.3: 245
708 Index Locorum
Sappho Solon 11: 79

(Voigt) (IEG) 12: 79
1.1: 456 4.10: 469 14: 79
1.7: 442 4.14: 572 16: 85
1.13–20: 556 4.27: 247 18: 79
1.26: 265 13.1–2: 510 21: 79
2.9: 542 13.2: 442 31: 79
16.17: 400 13.52: 539 33–36: 79
16.18: 502 19.5: 333, 537 42–44: 424
18: 531 26.2: 522 83: 85
23.1: 521 36.21: 435, 486 87: 85, 425
37.3: 521 98: 85
44.24–34: 538 Sophocles 102: 85, 400
44.25: 437 Aj. 103: 85, 464
56.2: 539 69–70: 471 115–16: 85
58.12: 247, 263, 505 137: 446 118–23: 80
86.5: 442 147: 375 118: 85, 400
94.28: 437 237: 580 119: 80
103.10: 271 242: 544 120: 80
105a.2: 385 376: 509 121–22: 80
110.2: 292 559: 491 121: 80–81
118: 244 581: 420 122: 81
123: 271 665: 251 123: 85
130.2: 513 783: 539 143–44: 85
141: 329 832: 487 188: 85
845–47: 286 220: 305
Sappho vel Alcaeus 911: 305 250: 85, 506, 519
(Voigt) 255: 273
16.3: 478 Ant. 265–70: 81
291: 394 265–67: 228
Scylax 350–51: 401 273: 412
112: 318 700: 509 274–76: 82
773: 468 275: 242, 356
Semonides 965: 525 277–82: 82, 237
(IEG) 995: 251 282: 85
1.19: 535 1001–1004: 565 283: 85
7.104: 437 1149: 252 287: 260
18: 248 1151: 575 299–300: 83, 245, 246
20.1: 219 1186: 353 300: 258
310: 85, 255
Simonides El. 316: 266
(PMG) 110: 578 325–27: 83
519.1 ii 2: 522 489: 452 327: 270
520.2: 521 1262–63: 293 328: 83
555.2: 219, 413 1502: 394 329: 273
575.1: 486 340: 85
Ichn. (= fr. 314) 345–47: 84 n. 13
(IEG) (Diggle) 360–61: 84
11.19–24: 584 1–42: 79 371–77: 83
Index Locorum 709
Sophocles, Ichn. (cont.) Tr. Strabo
374–76: 84 94: 255 8.3.30: 134 n. 24
451ff.: 84 100: 307 8.5.1: 241
456: 84 501: 436 9.2.33: 301
457: 84 643: 521 10.3.10: 523, 575
693–94: 293 10.4.18: 347
OC 694: 293 12.7.3: 528
193: 400 889–91: 432 13.1.59: 290
413: 566 926: 486 13.4.6: 290
650: 562 957: 366 16.2.9: 304
691–92: 523 1014: 251
824: 420 1057: 293 Terpander
1224–27: 364 (Gostoli)
1322: 405 Fr. Test.
1420: 535 171.3: 249 47: 134 n. 26
1431: 535 318: 85 48: 134 n. 26
1479: 461 371: 42, 220 50: 134 n. 26
1547: 578 483.2: 486 53a: 134 n. 26
1548: 487 592.5: 360 53b: 134 n. 26
1700: 389 771: 573
837.3: 476 Fr.
OT 905.2: 381 2 (= PMG 697): 216, 277
36: 247 923: 305 4: 584
114: 566 930: 84
480: 576 933: 84, 85 Thales
572: 425 T 1.129: 264
647: 482 Soranus
652–53: 482 Gyn. Theagenes
1035: 356 2.28: 304 (D.-K.)
1149: 392 2: 21 n. 53
1125–26: 393 Sotades Comicus
1262: 353 (PCG) Thebais
1287: 353 1.28–29: 112, 409 (Bernabé)
1294: 353 1: 216, 223
1312: 552 Stesichorus
(PMGF) Theocritus
Ph. 184.2: 317 1.28: 262
29: 468 184.3: 405 1.106: 318
36: 320, 322 185.3: 509 4.27: 342
133: 282 187.2: 293 4.40: 511
208: 552 241: 583 5.9: 552
296–97: 320 250: 523 5.45: 318
364–65: 522 278: 525 6.20: 506
821–22: 227 S11.5–6: 365 7.73: 342
979: 576 S88 fr. 1 col. ii 20: 396 7.100–101: 280
1135: 451 S105b.9: 391 7.123: 350
1188–89: 366 S148.8–9: 522 7.130–31: 478
1211: 476 7.140: 552
1417: 578 7.149: 491
710 Index Locorum
Theocritus (cont.) 25.28: 315 98: 317

8.65: 227 25.32: 122 116: 459
8.71: 506 25.37–38: 120 121: 264
9.25: 255 25.38–41: 121 157: 454
10.42: 452 25.42: 122 176: 492
11.12–13: 314 25.52: 122 241: 537
11.22: 227 25.60: 122 326: 556
12.6–7: 537 25.62: 122 396: 264
12.7: 247 25.67: 120 n. 84, 121 459: 361
14.39: 331 25.68–84: 122 467–72: 523
14.43: 20 n. 51 25.80: 122 477: 540
14.52: 513 25.85–152: 119 491: 527
15.6: 385 25.85–87: 122 507: 264
15.29: 420 25.86–87: 316 542: 402
16.7: 369 25.105: 391 601: 363
17.23: 453 25.132: 120 n. 84, 123 642: 458
17.30: 513, 551 25.143: 123 644: 458
17.41: 390 25.146–48: 123 681–82: 20 n. 52
17.52: 265 25.152: 123 704: 454
17.86: 290 25.153–281: 119 734: 481
17.123: 453 25.158: 231 759: 378
18.46: 450 25.183: 381 765–66: 522
18.56: 247 25.202: 461 765: 450
22.33: 319 25.225: 386 776: 522
22.53: 384 25.241: 120 n. 84 807–808: 534
22.157: 221 25.242: 120 n. 84, 123, 829: 538
22.223: 510 357 851–52: 451
23.7–8: 265 25.272: 401 853: 452
24.3: 426 863: 350
24.13: 451 Theodorus II Ducas 877: 275
24.36: 292 Lascaris 940: 538
24.40: 373 (Festa) 957: 527
24.48: 420 Epist. 985: 264
24.85: 381 75.16: 505 1020: 338
24.138: 303 1038a: 452
28.11: 264 Theodorus Studites 1059: 492
Catech. Magna 1068: 522
[Theocritus] 29: 304 1070a: 275
21.5: 521 1120: 362
25: 119–23 Theognis 1148: 481
25.1–84: 119 4: 442 1150: 250, 557
25.1–2: 121 8–10: 281 1154: 296
25.3–6: 120 13: 442 1164b: 317
25.4: 498 19: 539 1234: 419
25.7–34: 122 27–28: 573 1257: 419
25.15: 123 n. 87 48: 469 1285: 565
25.20: 122, 338 64–65: 458 1297: 481
25.21: 543 70: 459 1307: 555
25.27: 122 81: 387, 450 1312: 556
Index Locorum 711
Theognis (cont.) 5.18.9: 487 Xenophanes
1374: 458 5.47: 487 (D.-K.)
5.47.8: 295 1.13–14: 11 n. 25
Theophanes Continuatus 5.59.5: 447 22.2: 317
(Bekker) 5.79.4: 517 32: 398
5.72: 513 6.27.1: 247
6.27.2: 425, 483 (IEG)
Theophrastus 6.54.6–7: 136 n. 34 1.4: 522
Char. 7.81: 410 1.13: 522
1.5: 424
16.3: 251 Timocles Xenophon
16.10: 239 (PCG) An.
14: 487 1.2.8: 336, 337
CP 31.1: 446 1.4.4: 492
1.21.7: 319 1.6.7: 492
3.6.3: 409 Timotheus 2.3.10: 307
3.6.5: 382 (PMG) 3.1.3: 330
3.11.5: 497 791.147: 332 5.2.4: 491
3.12.2: 303 791.199–201: 355 7.1.17: 354
3.16.1: 301 791.221–23: 246 7.5.5: 492
3.23.1: 497 791.229–30: 269 7.8.12: 491
HP Tryphiodorus Cyn.
1.8.1: 225, 318 175: 387 5.9.2: 225
1.10.5: 318
4.1.1: 225 Tyrtaeus Cyr.
4.14.12: 307 (IEG) 1.4.20: 235
5.3.4: 319 4.2: 534, 565 4.4.4: 308
5.7.6: 269 4.5: 317 4.5.15: 253
5.9.6–7: 319 5.7: 53 4.5.25: 368
5.9.6: 322 7.1: 317 7.2.20: 305
7.13.3: 400 11.19: 467 7.5.5: 492
11.29: 231, 275
Ign. 12.29: 231 HG
29: 321 19.14: 355 2.1.1: 295
63–64: 319 19.20: 275 2.3.23: 412
4.1.8: 368
Fr. Vetus Testamentum Graece 4.6.6: 437
6.1.3: 307 Redditum 5.2.32: 275
6.27: 231 Ge. 7.5.7: 387
49.12: 386
Thucydides Mem.
1.138.5: 304 Vita Aesopi 1.2.21: 267
1.140.2: 447 1: 228 1.2.60: 313
3.58.4: 322 4–8: 300 2.1.21: 469
3.104.2: 576 37: 541 3.5.22: 275
3.104–5: 583 3.14.6: 306
4.32: 528
4.88.1: 562
712 Index Locorum
Xenophon (cont.) Arb. 2.683–707: 102

Oec. 6.4: 303 2.684: 102 n. 55
20.4: 304 2.688: 102
Horatius 2.706: 103
Smp. Carm. 2.708ff.: 102
1.8: 390 1.10: 3.90: 359
2.1: 538 77, 99 n. 45, 364, 5553 4.664: 311
3.1: 505 1.10.7–8: 101 5.339: 273
1.10.18: 422 8.611–724: 300
Vect. 9.421: 313
5.3: 304 S. 10.145: 273
1.3.26–27: 471 11.301–17: 66 n. 62
[Xenophon] 1.9.66: 485 15.191: 313
Ath. 15.700: 313
1.18: 447 Hyginus
Astr. F.
Zenobius (Leutsch- II 7: 92–93 1.543–86: 284
Schneidewin) II 16: 91 n. 31 5.375–76: 281
1.77: 266 5.493–536: 301
Fab. 5.643–52: 284
Zonaras 200: 66 n. 62 5.663–92: 77
Epitome Historiarum (Din- 201: 65 n. 61 5.683–84: 77 n. 3
dorf)
1.23: 570 Iuvenalis Pacuvius
13.84: 429 Antiope
Fr. 3: 246
2. ROMAN AUTHORS Livius
1.7: 284 Plinius
Andronicus 1.57.7: 556 Nat.
Odussia (Warmington) 6.24.8–9: 556 7.204: 551
1: 237 16.208: 319
Lucretius 17.188–89: 303
Apuleius 5.1096–1100: 319 21.108: 400
Met. 22.44: 326
5.28: 396 Manilius 32.33: 258
5.324–25: 246 32.37: 257
Aulus Gellius 32.40: 257
3.16: 231 34.81: 326
Martialis
Catullus 5.65: 284
Propertius
64.384–86: 300
Origo Gentis Romanae 4.9.1–20: 284
Cicero 6.2: 284
Div. Statius
1.81: 568, 573 Ovidius Ach.
Am. 1.187: 273
Columella 1.1.29: 294
4.5.10: 303 Theb.
6.24.1–2: 495 M. 7.271–72: 301
6.27.8: 495 2.541–632: 396
Index Locorum 713
Plautus p. 28.23: 226 IV 526 (p. 1243): 332
Mil. 571–73: 305 p. 85.5–7: 473 IV 658 (p. 1281): 506
p. 103.28: 468 IV 717 (p. 1297): 455
Seneca p. 119.25: 449 IV 914–15 (p. 1353): 131
Nat. p. 157.28: 367
2.22.1: 319 p. 168.34–169.2: 562 Od.
I 205 (p. 1528): 482
Symphosius Corpus Glossariorum I 433 (p. 1698): 399
Aenigmata (Ohl) Latinorum II 49 (p. 1741): 504
20: 246 II 145.14: 382 II 150 (p. 1824): 526
II 441.24: 455 II 219 (p. 1878): 401
Terentius II 246 (p. 745): 66 n. 62
An. Etymologicum Genuinum
381: 266 589: 502 Georgius Choeroboscus
" 63: 384 In Theod.
Hau. 116: 219
Etymologicum Gudianum
760: 266
(Sturz)
904: 266 Herodian
343.47–48: 468
(Lentz)
375.6–9: 106
Vergilius III/1 p. 170.20–22:
423.53–56: 449
Ecl. 90 n. 27
450.56–451.2: 219
4.61: 231 III/1 p. 309: 90 n. 27
Etymologicum Magnum III/1 p. 515.13–15: 473
G. 77.29–30: 502 III/2 p. 20: 90 n. 27
2.112: 294 139.49–50: 282 III/2 p. 152: 399
2.397–417: 303 191.56–57: 384 III/2 p. 177: 349
268.10–24: 487
A. 270.45–47: 248 Epimerismi (Boissonade)
1.403–407: 281 329.1–2: 444 p. 86: 510
6.787: 385 374.20–26: 222 p. 143: 363
8.190–267: 284 572.1–4: 106
11.182–83: 311 618.41–44: 449 Hesychius
770.2–5: 382 (Latte/Hansen)
817.40: 349 131: 296
3. SCHOLIASTS, 533: 294
GRAMMARIANS, Eustathius 1053: 465
LEXICOGRAPHERS Thessalonicensis 1453: 465
Il. 1927: 465
Analecta Oxoniensia I 136 (p. 86): 489 2003: 421
(Cramer) I 199 (p. 129): 482 2812: 296
I 280: 338 I 394 (p. 258): 482 2903: 572
II 180: 264 II 5 (p. 513): 470 3399: 349
II 132 (p. 575): 160 3944: 216
Apollonius Sophista II 814 (p. 777): 349 4442: 261
Lexicon Homericum III 65 (p. 804): 66 n. 62 6718: 255
(Bekker) III 113 (p. 818): 267 7967: 307
p. 5.11–12: 295 III 179 (p. 839): 489 " 655: 296
p. 18.5: 489 III 679 (p. 998): 504 " 908: 368
p. 26.28–29: 506 IV 362 (p. 1194): 223 " 1205: 462
714 Index Locorum
Hesychius (cont.) 1794: 222 7.86: 296

(Latte/Hansen) 2330: 53 7.90: 90
1095–96: 487 2472: 339
1098: 487 2572: 290 Probus
2438: 466 4451: 469 Virgil G. 3.267f.: 284
2091: 385 340: 332
3059: 568 ! 270: 248 Scholia in Apollonium
5214: 338 ! 1239: 579 Rhodium
5261: 393 ! 1933: 319 1.1184: 319
5937: 216 796: 526 4.1322: 449
5952: 216 1530: 382 4.1490b: 66 n. 62
( 1022: 490 φ 48: 92 n. 34
( 1024 (Schmidt): φ 481: 282 Scholia in Aristophanem
490 n. 18 φ 1106: 484 Nu.
89: 264 φ 1110: 484 508: 570
255: 559 / 209: 338 595c: 216
305: 417 / 710: 491
948: 572 Pl.
405: 267 [Ioannes Zonaras] 116a, b, c: 239
641: 383 Tittmann 1110a, c-e: 578
649: 383 539: 248
2238: 461 1560: 444 V.
2239: 461 1805: 363 1169c: 248
2448: 382
2949: 415 Pausanias Gr. Scholia in Hesiodum
3923: 507 143: 289 Op.
3992: 468 69: 245 748–49: 328
4106: 382 71: 239 800b: 239
4795: 382 46: 469
) 80: 471 Sc.
) 171: 357 Photius 104: 301
) 174: 358 Bibliotheca
) 472: 471 144a: 219 Scholia in Homerum
) 520: 242 Il.
) 521: 242 Lexicon (Theodoridis 1.498: 563
) 887: 315 /Naber) 2.103: 487
) 1016: 242 480: 249 2.144: 411
) 1017: 242 930: 572 5.613: 370
) 1018: 242 1563: 261 n. 2 9.158: 581
685: 521 435: 248 9.534: 392
686: 521 Ρ« (II 2): 465 10.266: 66 n. 62
719: 569 S !) (II 29): 336 11.86: 466
989: 535 )( (II 124): 469 13.473: 449
91: 236 */)« (II 230): 382 14.475: 504
92: 236 14.499: 411
376: 449 Pollux 15.256: 104, 553
377: 449 1.243: 304 16.183: 308
1785: 222 7.22: 382 17.594: 489
1793: 222 7.86–87: 132 n. 19 18.336: 493
Index Locorum 715
Scholia in Homerum (cont.) Servius PGM
Il. A. I 5.410–14: 234
22.29: 88 n. 22 1.505: 256 I 6.27: 49
24.24: 90 II 23.3: 223
G.
Od. 4.463: 103 P.Herc.
1.1: 232 1.92:385 243 III: 66 n.62
4.320: 385 Stephanus Byzantius
11.287: 496 p. 618.21: 112 P.Köln
11.574: 449 14.435:437 III 127.6: 228
24.1: 235, 444 Suda
765: 313 P.Lond.
Scholia in Dionysium 1700: 216 81: 555
Thraca 1701: 216
(Hilgard) 792: 332 P.Mag.Lond.
Marc. p. 308: 106 1299: 275 121.224: 555
Vat. p. 173: 106 (n. 62) 2898: 88 n. 22
1415: 270 P.Oxy.
Scholia in Lucianum 1785: 329 IV 769: 471
VH ) 207: 358
1.32: 320 ) 208: 358 VI 898.11: 581
) 360: 242
Scholia in Lycophronem φ 334: 78 n. 6, 282 VII 1015: 105–107
344: 65 n. 61 φ 336: 78 n. 6 1–7: 105–106
φ 665: 484 4–5: 105 n. 61
Scholia in Nicandrum / 174: 434 7: 105 n. 61, 543
Alex. 20: 106–107
560: 106, 516 Suetonius
P λ ")!φ( (Miller) VIII 1084: 78
Scholia in Pindarum p. 420: 469
O. XXIII 2379: 475 n. 17
7.156c: 150–51 n. 83 Tryphon (Velsen)
12.10: 250 14: 399 XXXIV 2688.14–20: 558
P. XXXIV 2689 fr.2.18–22:

K*!«: 89 n. 24 4. PAPYRI 558
6.35: 490
XXXV 2734 fr. 1: 77
N.
P.Arg. 481r
2.17: 219 XLVIII 3396: 571
general: 508
10.33: 506
4–7: 560
LII 3000: 91 n. 32
Scholia in Platonem
P.Derv.
Lg. LXVIII 4667: 156, 576
vi 4: 49
932a: 245 2: 226
vii 4–7: 21
10: 214
xiii 4: 242
Scholia in Theocritum
1.28: 262 LXXIII 4967: 221
15.94/95a: 569
716 Index Locorum
P.Ross.Georg. I.Cret. I.Orop.

II 20.7: 581 II ix 1: 528 319.4: 335
IV 42B 11: 43, 306
P.Ryl. IV 81.12: 488 IosPE
I 53 fol. 92r: 399 IV 82B 3: 43, 306 I2 436: 223
I.Eph. I.Prien.
5. INSCRIPTIONS 1678: 396 216.9: 221
IG I.Sestos
I3 29 fr. a 7: 488 11.23: 323
AE
I3 37 fr. bc18: 488
1903: 58.3–4: 421
I3 53.14: 488
IvO
I3 54 fr. a-d 23.27: 488
BCH 5.3: 276
I3 83.3: 488
22 (1898) 350: 571
I3 86 fr. a-d, g 3: 488
I3 89 fr. a-h 29: 488 LSAM
CEG 13.13–15: 335
I3 305–36, 318, 331–32:
I 230: 510 22.6: 336
374
I 234: 539 24A16: 335
I3 766: 539
I3 776: 510 32.53–54: 335
CorGr 26(1), 44: 335
I3 784 I.2: 221–22
p. 118 Wachter: 217 44.12: 336
I3 1469.1: 362
II2 378.4: 238 n.1 45.8–9: 335
Epigr.Gr. 46.7: 335
II2 650: 586
(Kaibel) 48.16: 335
II2 12318.7: 233
744.3: 221 49B30: 335
II2 1424a.145: 335
812: 294, 302 50.34–36: 340
II2 1496 iv fr. a 84–85:
1025.8: 252 70.5: 335
529
1032: 105, 232, 234
II2 1496 iv fr. b 115–16:
1032.2: 42 n. 9, 105 LSCG
529
1032.5: 105 96.7, 12, 30–31: 335
II2 1514–30,
1108: 283, 373 98.12–14: 340
1533.102–103: 374
II2 1673.78: 238 n.1 103B7: 335
FD 151A52–53: 335
II2 2873.6: 529
III,1 486: 282 151A52: 336
II2 3977: 543
III,2 47.20–29: 152 n. 88 151A56–59: 335
II2 4826.2: 449
IV2 1 110.27/28: 247 156A29: 336
#E φλ K
«
IV2 1 276: 482
M «
VII 36: 523 LSS
I. Beroia
VII 235.16: 148 10A41: 335
1
IX 2 661: 419 19.33: 335
B 45–71: 151
XII 5 893.3: 523 19.85: 239
B 49–51: 151
XII 7 62.8–10: 303 115A 21–25: 341
B 54–57: 151
XII 7 62.29: 497 129.1–7: 335
B 65–66: 340
XII 9 1011.1: 313
B 66–67: 152
Mycenaean Inscriptions
ILS KN
3200: 234, 578 Dx 411 + X 511: 216
Index Locorum 717
Mycenaean Inscriptions SEG SGDI
(cont.) 9: 132: 549 II 124–25: 552
PY 27: 261: 150 n. 81 II 1586: 552
Nn 1357: 216 30: 908: 554 III 1167: 264
Tn 316.7: 216 33: 716.1: 362 III, 2 5783: 216–17
Un 219.8: 216 34: 1019: 552
37: 488: 419 Tit.Cam.
NGSL 43: 381: 151 n. 87 135: 221
1.9: 340 49: 845: 543
11.24: 334
20.7: 335
23 A 22: 415

Vergados - The Homeric Hymn To Hermes - Introduction, Text and Commentary-Walter de Gruyter (2012)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Vergados - The Homeric Hymn To Hermes - Introduction, Text and Commentary-Walter de Gruyter (2012)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

I

TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE

The Homeric Hymn to Hermes

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde

H.Herm. and the Odyssean tradition (65) – H.Herm.

sented in Lyon, at the conference “Les Hymnes de la Grèce antique:

Heidelberg, August 2011

An. Ox. Cramer, J. A. 1835–37. Anecdota Graeca e codd.

CEG Hansen, P. A. 1983, 1989. Carmina epigraphica

Frisk Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wör-

LSAM Sokolowski, F. 1952. Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mi-

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (1924/5 –)

Note, finally, the following:

1. Summary of the poem

The Homeric Hymn to Hermes narrates Hermes’ adventures during the

identity. He immediately darts to Pylos, but unable to discover the pre-

2. Music, Poetry, and Language

2.1 Hermes’ Two Songs1

4 Notice the iterative % &!  at 58.

mind us that his hero is an infant: consequently Hermes’ attention is

11 See p. 254–55 and Shelmerdine (1984, 207).

himself he is exclusively preoccupied with his own identity, his second

2.2 Hermes’ Songs as Mise en Abyme

temporal orientation. Scholars have also attempted to identify textual

23 See below, p. 70–73.

The simile of 55–56 is not the only reference to sympotic practice.

26 See Manuwald (2002, 161).

listens to Hermes’ performance. By 438 he seems to have forgotten

27 Cf. the comments on )<« on p. 141.

29 See Radermacher 157.

2.3 Semata, Poetry, and Prophecy

36 On the subject, see Tzifopoulos (2000).

continuous.38 But what is the point of this obscurity? Hermes’ remarks

nection appear in archaic literature.48 Already Hesiod gives us a

48 See Katz and Volk (2000, 124).

critics such as Xenophanes or Heraclitus. Theagenes of Rhegium (mid

The Homeric Hymn to Hermes seems at times to hint at such an

2.4 Hermes’ Deceptive Language

in a section of advice pertaining to the management of one’s wealth,

3. Humour in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes

5 Clay Politics 11–16.

7 See West (2001).

of Hermes as cattle-rustler and inventor of the lyre.10 While the poet of

12 Cf. Tzifopoulos (2000) and above, p. 16, 23–24.

13 See Morrow (1985, 193 n. 6).

Furthermore, lines 278–79 λ  μ $μ ")φ  $ 1!!

oath is an even clearer instance of deflation: he swears this great (but

tortoise and two cows, but certainly no mythical beast. Conversely,

16 See Fernández-Delgado (1998, 8–9).

p. 9–14). It is doubtful whether this can lead us to any firm conclusions

18 Cf., for instance, the pun on Κ «, 7 «, and

Hermes, by the re-definition of their power, and by the reprise24 in a

4. Relation to Archaic Literature

frequently. Then, several of the words of h.Herm. that are paralleled

4.1.1.1 Words attested thus far only in h.Herm.

13 ¹)7 (, 15 S(

1 8 (Th./Op.; cf. Od. 8.429 $

4.1.1.3 Words and phrases used differently in h.Herm. than in Homer

2   of Hermes, cf. S. fr. 371, Ar. Ra. 665. 14 )(!

9 This has been supplemented in Epigr.Gr. 1032.2 (Kaibel).

4 Notice the iterative % &! at 58.

27 Cf. the comments on )<« on p. 141.

Furthermore, lines 278–79 λ μ $μ ")φ $ 1!!

18 Cf., for instance, the pun on Κ«, 7 «, and

13 ¹)7(, 15 S(

1 8 (Th./Op.; cf. Od. 8.429 $

2 of Hermes, cf. S. fr. 371, Ar. Ra. 665. 14 )(!

‘hide’?. 92 φ*« ‘deaf’. 95 )1« of mountain glens instead

6 )! « (Archil.). 12 $ !( (Tyrt.). 17 @«: this form is

([Orph.]). 95 C)« (Hdt.). 103 Κ) (S.). 103 K5)

of his defence speeches. At 432 $)*« may look forward to the

11. C ² /9 (! ( λ ¹)! )*!) (317); for the first

18 has )< at 368.

198.11*). In all these instances, )« Q) « "« is preceded

9. #O/(! $φ Ω )7 Ν)!« | 4μ !φ -

Kμ /λ P (! (555) recurs at h.Apol. 269*;

7. Synecphonesis or synizesis occurs at 113 (( ), 175

Schulze QE 253. Adjectives ending in -«, indicating the material

φ)*( | AC) K))() #A φ9 (. This passage reflects another sort

&; both parts of this hemistich occur in archaic hexameter

clearly echoes h.Herm. 77–78 $ 7!« ²)«, « *!

These verses may be compared to h.Herm. 38 ν ξ 9 («, *