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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The view of Homer which I have attempted to expound in articles recently contributed to this and other journals may be stated as follows: an individual, father of the children, first natural then spiritual, who bore his name and worshipped him, lived in Chios, of which island he was so much the glory that ‘ Chian ’ in the mouth of Simonides, himself a professional and an islander, means ‘ Homer.’ He was not blind, like his disciple the Chian Cynaethus, (...) but seeing: he selected, arranged, adorned and expanded two episodes in the stock of saga which the colonists brought with them from Europe. (shrink)

I will next briefly enumerate the evidence for the separate poems, beginning with the Trojan series.