^{page 93 note 1} See Legrand, , Buc. gr. ii. 69Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 2} Notice the agnostic answer to the question where the lion came from (197). Hesiod (Th. 327) said it was the offspring of the Chimaera: Epimenides (fr. 2) that it fell from the moon: Euphorion (fr. 84 Powell) and others that the moon was its mother.

^{page 93 note 3} A scrap of this conversation is preserved in Call. fr. 33 Pfeiffer, from which it appears that she inquires the hero's errand and he asks her about herself. The brief description in Plut.Thes. 14 derives from Philochorus, not from Callimachus.

There is, by the way, no evidence at present that the author of Id. 25 knew theHekale, for what is proffered as such at Kapp, , Call. Hecal. fragmenta, p. 4Google Scholar, is nugatory.

^{page 93 note 4} Call.fr. 6.Fr. 6 Pfeiffer (as Dr. Pfeiffer points out to me), is now seen from p. Oxy. 2169 to be from their conversation after the event.

^{page 93 note 5} Eumaios in the Odyssey no doubt supplies a distant analogy, and the author of Id. 25 has that poem often in mind.

^{page 93 note 6} Buc. Gr., p. 165.

^{page 93 note 7} See Ziegler, K., Das Hellenist. Epos, 11Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 8} There is what might almost be a sketch for the second at 16. 90 ff.

^{page 94 note 1} On which see Wilamowitz, , Textg. 218Google Scholar. Wilamowitz noted that each part opens in a manner which can be paralleled from books of Homer. That of Part 1 most closely resembles Od. 9; that of Part 3, Od. 16 (to which Wilamowitz compared it). Many books both of the Iliad and of the Odyssey open like Part 2 with a time-note, though it is perhaps significant that there it is always dawn, here in the abbreviated book the afternoon. Note also that Part 1 ends much likeIl. 19, and Part 3 sufficiently like Il. 24 to confirm the view that this is the original end of the poem.

^{page 94 note 2} The break in Id. 24 after 1. 102 bears some resemblance to the two in this poem.

^{page 94 note 3} Of the MSS. used by Wilamowitz it occurs, I think, only in C Tr. Ziegler cites it from Vat. 1379: Ahrens (I do not understand on what authority) from an Apographum Aldi. C omits δωρíδι and places διηγματικῸν before the title.

^{page 94 note 4} It is not certain that the poem is cited even anonymously. Schmidt, (Hesych. 5Google Scholar. 171) assigns seven glosses to this origin, of which ρρησ (83) and αὐτῸπλοιον (208) are most plausibly so explained. Nor are imitations in other poets more numerous. It is possible that Quint. S. 8. 489 derives from 85 but it is not certain, and the two other borrowings collected by Ahrens (both from Nonnus) have very little plausibility. The account of Herakles and the Cretan bull at Quint. S. 6. 236 ff., though not mentioned by Ahrens, looks as though it owed something to end of the poem. 145 ff.

^{page 94 note 5} Hunt, , Two Theocritus Papyri, p. 20Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 6} Animad. p. 309.

^{page 94 note 7} Analecta, 1. 357.

^{page 94 note 8} Hymn, in Cererem, p. xi.

^{page 94 note 9} Cf. Hiller, , Beitrdge, 60Google Scholar, 66.

^{page 94 note 10} Stud. It. di Fil. Class., n.s. iv. 217.

^{page 95 note 1} The relations of the poem to Homer are elaborately examined in Frohn's, E.De carmine xxv Theocriteo (Halle, 1908)Google Scholar. See also Genther, L., Ueber Theokr. xxv u. Mosch. iv (Luckau, 1891)Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 2} C.Q. xxxii. 10;C.R. Ivi. 11.

^{page 95 note 3} Among the words (mostly Homeric) which distinguish the pastoral vocabulary of Id.1 25 from that of T.'s bucolic Idylls Perrotta counts νομεσ (109, 122). This noun does not occur in the purely bucolic Idylls and its occurrence at 9. 29 is therefore worth mention when the authenticity of that poem is under consideration, But if Perrotta had noticed that it occurs also at 7.28 (that is in a personal poem with a pastoral setting) he would not have included it here. We do not know nearly enough about Greek vocabulary to determine whether it is accident or design which admits νμεσӨαι and νομεειν to T.'s bucolic poems, confines νομεσ to the peculiar Id. 7, and prese νομῸσ only in the spurious Id. 27, νομ only in the probably spurious Id. 8.

^{page 95 note 4} p. 262. On resemblances to Apollonius see also Legrand, , Étude, 19, CGoogle Scholar. Brinker, , de Theocriti vita carminibusque subditiciis (Rostock, 1884), 66Google Scholar. Brinker, however, thinks T. the author.

^{page 95 note 5} Some is worse than futile. E.g. (p. 257)la parola ροτρεσ usata nell Eracle, alla fine deivv,

I. e 51, deriva certamente da ροτρεσ usato pure in fine di verso in Apollonio, 1. 1172. Do Aratus (1075, 1117) and Nicander (Th. 4), then, imitate Apollonius? Where in a dactylic hexameter does P. expect to find the word?

^{page 95 note 6} C.Q. xxxii. 10, C.R. Ivi. 11.

^{page 96 note 1} His strongest cases for Ap. Rh. 1 and 2 are 15 (1. 127), 20 (2. 733); for Ap. Rh. 3 and 4, 66 (3. 934, ion), no (4. 731). Cumulatively his weaker instances strengthen the argument a little, but only a little. I add, since P. does not mention it, that the method by which Herakles acquires a club on Helikon (209) bears some resemblance to that by which he acquires an oar in Mysia (Ap. Rh. 1. 1196), and his handling of the aggressive bull (145) to Jason's handling of the fire-breathing bulls (Ap. Rh. 3. 1306).

P.'s argument (p. 261) that the borrower must may like be the author of Id. 25 because Apollonius was too eminent to borrow from anignoto bucolico begs the question; and it would have little weight even if it were certain that to A. this poet was an ignoto. Besides, we do not know the relative dates of the poems.

^{page 96 note 2} 123 compared with Id. 16. 1.

^{page 96 note 3} The most striking are probably between 19 and 24. 94, and between 168 and 13. 44.

^{page 96 note 4} Diss. Phil. Vindob. 5. 103 (cf. Perrotta, p. 219).

^{page 96 note 5} Compare Id. 25. 148, 259, 262 with Id. 22. 48 (cf. also 93, 124), 98, 129.

_{page 96 note 6} Prinz argued further that epigr. 4. 3 borrows the rare word αὐτΌφλοιον from 25. 208, and Id. 9. 5 τιμαγελεȗντεσ from 25. 132 τιμαγλαι: and that as the authors of these spurious poems were imitators of T. they must have found Id. 25 among his works. Those who condemn Id. may like to add to this evidence βον πíουροσ(8. 6: 25. 1), but they must subtract epigr. 4 for there is no reason to suppose that its author is imitating T. I do not in any case think there is much weight in the argument. See also Legrand, , Étude, 17Google Scholar.

^{page 96 note 7} Textg. 218. What follows amplifies and corrects some brief remarks of mine inC.Q. xxiv. 146.

^{page 97 note 1} Apoll. 2. 5. 5, Call.fr. 383, Paus. 5. 1. 9. Pausanias assigns a different cause to the dispute; Callimachus makes Phyleus not witness but judge.

^{page 97 note 2} Cf. for instance, 5. 66, Od. 19. 215, Ap. Rh. 4. 89.

^{page 97 note 3} Phyleus has some memory that according to the Achaean the slayer of the lion was a Perseid (173). It is not necessary to suppose that this helps him to identify his companion with the victor, but the detail has slightly more relevance if it does so.

^{page 97 note 4} Their conversation is no doubt light-hearted for men, or even for heroes, going into exile, but the Augeias-story is not the poet's theme. They are leaving the king's presence (for the town in the first instance) and it is enough that the story should provide an occasion for their conversation. Neither here nor between Parts 1 and 2 is the reader invited to inquire further, thought a sufficient answer is available should he do.

^{page 97 note 5} The possibility that something is lost at the beginning should perhaps be left open, since in the edition of callierges, where Id. 25 follows 24, the end of 24 and beginning of 25 are stated to be missing and the first statement has now been corroborated by p. Ant. The beginning of Part I, however, seems securely fixed by the heading 'Hρακλσ πρῸσ γροîκον which is likely to be original, and, if anything really preceded, it may original, have been another whole Part or something of a prefatory character.

^{page 98 note 1} The majority have been noticed before byone scholar or another.

^{page 98 note 2} On these two lines see C.Q. xxiv. 148.

^{page 98 note 3} Rostovtzeff, (Social and Econom. Hist. 1190Google Scholar) thinks the poet gives a good picture of a large cattle-breeding estate in Hellenistic times, but 126 ff. do not inspire me (or, I think, Legrand) with much confidence in his practical knowledge pf of the subject.

^{page 98 note 4} In the following line, οὔτι λíην ρíσημοσ ν ὔλῃ χλωρᾷ ἐοσῃ editors mostly accept Meineke's highly problematical χλωρ Өε οσῇ (χλωραӨεοσῇ J. A. Hartung, χλωρ Өε οσῇ Cholmeley, χλωρᾷ οȗσα Edmonds). I suppose they take the ὕλη to be the same as the μπελεώ‘Yλη is also used of weeds (Xen. Oec. 16. 13, 17. 12, 14), and I can imagine a foot-path obscured by the growth of grass and weeds. I do not understand the line, but if either of these explanations is correct χλωρᾷ οσῃ is much preferable to the substitutes proposed. L. and S., at present in two minds between Өω (B) shine, gleam, and χλωραӨω gleam green, might in future confine themselves to the two passages on which Meinke's conjecture was based.

^{page 98 note 5} And none the worse phrased for the fact that the words once served very different purposes at Od. 20. 301, 19. 452.

^{page 99 note 1} Texlg. 221.

^{page 99 note 2} He did not claim to have assisted, apparently, for Phyleus seems to know that the lion's opponent was single-handed (181), but I do not see how εӨεν παρɛΌντοσ can be construced into anything less than a claim to have been an eye-witness.

^{page 99 note 3} Antiph. fr. 220.ἔμμητρον ἄν ᾗ τῸ ξλον, βλστην ἔχει, Theophr. C.P. 5. 17. 2 τ ξλα τ ἔμμητρα διαστρφεται κατειργασμνα ἤδη μχρι οδ ἂν τελωσ ναξηρανӨῇ: cf. H.P. 5. 5. 2. It is useless so to punctuate the sentence that ἔμμητρον shall belong to the following relative clause, for (apart from the false emphasis it would thereby acquire) αὐτΌπλοιον also implies that the club is of unseasoned wood; and nobody, I imagine, will prefer the variant εὔμετρον.

^{page 99 note 4} C.Q. xiii. 22, xxiv. 146, xxxii. 16, xxxvi. 109; C.R. lvi. 16.

^{page 99 note 5} This is legrand's view as (É tude, 19; Buc. gr. ii. 71).

^{page 99 note 6} e.g. Xen. Anab. 3. 3. 17; Theophr. H.P. 4. 2. 7; Nic. Ther. 94.

^{page 99 note 7} So of javelins, Dion. Hal. 5. 46 λα προμκη τε καì χειροπληӨ τριν οὐχ ἣττον ποδν, where the thickness of the shaft is denoted.

^{page 99 note 8} C.Q. xxxii. 11.

^{page 100 note 1} This point is overlooked by Edmonds, and by Platt who proposed (J. Phil, xxxiv. 146) τ' ἅρ Өροσ ἦν μσον κμν. The travels of this stranger seem aimless, but we cannot remove the Argolid from his route or we shall not know how he acquired his information about the death of the lion. It is also not plain at 209 what should take Herakles to Helikon, which is not on the way from Thebes to Nemea. According to σ 13.6 he once killed another lion there—but I suspect that the geography of the Greek mainland is not this poet's forte.

^{page 100 note 2} See R.E. sUPPL. 3. 1021. In Apollodorus, who places Augeias fifth, the first four Labours are Lion, Hydra, Hind, Boar. A good deal of travelling is therefore involved, and if the chase of the Hind took the hero, as Pindar says (O.3. 31), ‘behind the North Wind’, the year allotted to it by Apollodorus (2. 5. 3.) is a moderates estimate

However we account for the length of the interval, the fact that the poet allows one shows that he had considered the background of his scenes more carefully than Wilamowitz would admit.