OLSON (2012) The Homeric Hymn To Aphrodite and Related Texts PDF

S.
Douglas Olson
The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts
TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE
Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe
Herausgegeben von
Siegmar Döpp, Adolf Köhnken, Ruth Scodel
Band 39
De Gruyter
The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite
and Related Texts
Text, Translation and Commentary
by
S. Douglas Olson
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-026072-4
e-ISBN 978-3-11-026074-8
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.dnb.de.
” 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Michael Peschke, Berlin
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
For Rachel (h. 5.185–6)
Preface
In late spring 2008, I began work on a commentary on the Homeric Hymn

to Aphrodite. The poem is early and complete, and has a lovely and com-
pelling storyline, and at that time no substantial modern English-language
edition of the text existed. I accordingly began to think and write my way
through it line by line, consulting the available commentaries, such as they
were, and familiarizing myself with the secondary bibliography. The
hAphr. (as I refer to it throughout here) is a beautiful example of small-
scale early Greek epic poetry, and I felt—and continue to feel—much like
Anchises in its presence: like an ordinary cowherd preparing for another
tedious day on the farm, into whose life suddenly drops a creature of ex-
traordinary beauty.
Early that summer, I discovered that Oxford University Press was
about to publish a commentary on the hAphr. by Andrew Faulkner. After
much consideration, I decided to continue with my own project. One fun-
damental element in the ideology of the modern ‘standard commentary’ is
that it is comprehensive and universal: it ‘covers everything, for everyone.’
But among the most common reactions to working with even the most up-
to-date editions of ancient texts is, in practice, a mixture of bafflement and
frustration, when one discovers that the commentator has ignored the word
or issue in which one is interested, or has dealt with it in an unhelpful
manner, or has failed to take some crucial piece of evidence into account.
Editors exercise enormous power over their authors, by deciding what to
print (and thus what to omit); even if they do so with regard for the highest
professional standards, offering a complete and easily reversible critical
apparatus at the bottom of the page, most readers will pay attention only to
the Greek or Latin as printed. Commentators, meanwhile, determine not
just the answers to the questions a text poses, but the questions that are
asked of it, and the better and more convincingly they so, the more effec-
tively and permanently they shape how the text is understood. The exist-
ence of two contemporary commentaries on a single Homeric Hymn, I
decided, produced independent of one another and in the absence of a long
tradition of interpretation to set a critical agenda in advance, might make
that issue visible in a productive way. In the event, Faulkner and I read the
hAphr. very differently, both on a line-by-line level (including in the Greek
we print, and the style and content of the apparatuses we provide) and in
viii Preface
our sense of the poem’s larger affiliations, context, and effects.1 My hope
is that readers will take this as a provocation rather than a problem, and as
encouragement to read the original Greek and what the two of us have to
say about it closely, critically, and creatively. In support of this approach, I
set Faulkner’s edition aside during my first, formative pass through the
text, and I have made a systematic effort not to argue directly with him
when we disagree, both because this would misrepresent the independent
nature of the projects, and because the reader will, I assume, have both
texts at hand and be able to construct the imaginary dialogue between us
for herself. 2
My text is based on complete collations of the manuscripts and the edi-
tio princeps (for all of which, see Introduction 6). I provide three separate
apparatuses. The first is a catalogue of specific intertexts: passages from
Homer, Hesiod, and other Hymns that the hAphr. or one of the nine other,
related, shorter Hymns presented in this edition quote, echo, or refer to
somehow, as well as passages from later authors who for their part quote,
echo, or refer to one of the Hymns. The second apparatus catalogues for-
mulaic language (somewhat broadly defined), documenting instances in
which the Hymns use established epic diction without obviously referring
to a specific epic exemplar. Implicit in the distinction between the items
included in the first apparatus and the second is a substantial claim about
the textualization of some epic poetry by the time the hAphr. was com-
posed, a matter I discuss briefly below and then take up in more detail in
Introduction 5. To my mind, the difference between the two categories is
generally clear; but individual readers may well feel that certain passages
included in the first apparatus belong in the second, and vice versa. The
third apparatus is a traditional apparatus criticus; points where my reports
of manuscript readings differ from those presented in Càssola (1975) or
Faulkner (2008) should be understood as intended as specific corrections
or supplements of their texts (although see Introduction 6.C on the limits of
the variants I record).
Much of my commentary is of a traditional philological character: I
consider what ought to be printed in the text, how variants arose, what
words mean and how they are to be construed and understood, and who
and what the individuals and objects referred to by the poet and his charac-
_____________
1 See the more detailed comments below, and the next two sections of the Introduc-
tion.
2 Matters are in fact even more complicated than this, since Faulkner and I were
both granted advance access to N. J. Richardson’s new Cambridge Green and Yel-
low commentary on the poem (2010), which is however on a considerably smaller
scale. I regret that Maire G. Chapsa’s 2008 dissertation (University of Patras) on
the Hymn came to my attention too late to be taken into account in this edition.
Preface ix
ters are. The primary limitation I have imposed upon myself in this connec-
tion, is that I have often declined to discuss matters that would seem to me
to be better taken up in a commentary on Homer or Hesiod; my reasons for
this are outlined briefly below. Two broad strategies of reading nonetheless
sharply distinguish my interpretation of the texts treated in this edition
from Faulkner’s treatment of the hAphr. First, I argue throughout that the
hAphr. in particular is composed in the shadow of the Iliad and the Odys-
sey, in more or less the form in which we have those poems today, and
probably in the shadow of Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days as
well. Put another way, the Hymns do not merely participate in and bear
witness to epic diction. Nor are they best understood as the product of a
degraded and clumsy ‘sub-epic’ phase of that diction (to use Hoekstra’s
unfortunately now well-established formulation). Instead, the Hymns treat-
ed in this edition, and especially the hAphr., consciously rework both gen-
eral and specific epic exemplars. Their language and expressions are not to
be explained, at least in the first instance, as merely ‘typical epic diction,’
in some cases badly handled. Instead, I proceed on the assumption that the
Hymns represent calculated and creative responses to fixed older texts, and
that their full sense only emerges when they are interpreted in that light.3
The credibility of this approach can only be assessed by the results it
yields, and thus by the contents of my commentary. Second, I pose
throughout a series of fundamentally narratological questions, including by
asking repeatedly not just ‘Who speaks?’ but ‘Who sees?’ or, better put,
‘Who perceives?’ and thus, to use a more technical term, ‘Who focalizes?’
This approach—or bundle of related approaches—works to expose some of
the poems’ basic but designedly invisible mechanics: how (to use Ge-
nette’s terms) has histoire (the events or alleged events the Hymns repre-
sent in their own idiosyncratic ways; Bal’s ‘fabula’) been transformed into
narration (the poems we have; Bal’s ‘text’)?
Attentive readers will note in addition that I am dubious about the ex-
istence in the archaic period of kings in the Troad claiming descent from
Aeneas (the ‘Aeneidae’), whereas Faulkner maintains that the hAphr. was
composed specifically to honor such individuals (Introduction 1); that I do
not believe that that poem was widely known or influential during the Hel-
lenistic period or later, whereas Faulkner maintains that it was (Introduc-
tion 3); that I reject, on specifically stated grounds, Janko’s ‘glottochrono-
metric’ attempt to precisely date the language of the hAphr., and indeed of
all surviving early epic texts, a matter on which Faulkner takes no firm
_____________
3 For clear large-scale examples of this tendency, e.g. hAphr. 58–67 (combining and
reworking Il. 14.166–86, esp. 169–72, on the one hand, and Od. 8.362–6, on the
other), 202–17 (combining and expanding on Il. 5.265–7; 20.234–5); h. 6.3–18
(filling in the gaps in Hes. Th. 188–206, esp. 191–202).
x Preface
position (Introduction 2); and that I see little evidence to support the notion
that the hAphr. has any substantial or significant Near Eastern background,
a point for which Faulkner argues at length.4 The nine shorter Hymns in-
cluded in this edition are in honor either of Aphrodite herself or of other
goddesses praised in something approaching hymnic style in the hAphr. I
have accordingly included them, because they seem to me to cast potential-
ly significant light on the longer Hymn 5, as well as being of interest in and
of themselves.
The majority of my commentary was produced during the 2008–2009
academic year, when I held a fellowship at the National Humanities Cen-
ter. Thanks are due the staff there for their unfailing kindness and support
in matters both academic and non-academic. My time at the Center was
made even more rewarding by the friendships I formed not just with other
fellows, but in the local classics and rock-climbing communities. I look
forward to seeing all of you again, if not in North Carolina, then perhaps
somewhere else equally beautiful and hospitable. A final version of the
manuscript was prepared at the University of Freiburg, where I held a
Humboldt Research Award during the 2011–2012 academic year. I would
like to thank my colleagues there, and especially Bernhard Zimmermann,
for making my time in Germany happy and productive. The University of
Minnesota provided Grant-in-Aid funds that allowed me both to purchase
microfilms of the manuscripts of the Hymns and to examine the manu-
scripts themselves in a number of European libraries. Hayden Pelliccia
read a complete draft of the text and commentary and asked difficult and
penetrating questions that changed my thoughts on many sections of the
text. Sam Caldis, Amber Grossheim, Sara Mickens, Josh Semrow, Opal
Sherwood, and Peter Wildberger, working under the auspices of a Univer-
sity of Minnesota UROP grant, checked thousands of references in the
body of the manuscript. Thanks of other sorts are due Nicolas Bock, Clau-
dio De Stefani, Andrew Faulkner, Antonios Rengakos, N. J. Richardson,
Ineke Sluiter, and Athanasios Vergados—and of course my own lovely
Aphrodite, to whom this book is dedicated.
_____________
4 Faulkner (2008) 18–22. Faulkner’s alleged parallels all appear to me to be generic
(sc. to stories of beautiful women and their lovers), whereas the case for specific
Greek epic models (detailed in my Introduction 3) is overwhelming.
Table of Contents
Preface ....................................................................................................... vii

Abbreviations and Sigla ........................................................................... xiii
Introduction
1. Anchises, Aeneas, and the Aeneidae ............................................ 1
2. Date of Composition ..................................................................... 10
3. Poetic Affiliations of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite ............... 16
4. Aphrodite and Sexuality ................................................................ 28
5. The Metrics of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite ......................... 34
6. Textual Transmission .................................................................... 42
Critical Text and Translation
Hymn 5: To Aphrodite ................................................................... 54
Hymn 6: To Aphrodite ....................................................................... 104
Hymn 9: To Artemis .......................................................................... 108
Hymn 10: To Aphrodite ..................................................................... 110
Hymn 11: To Athena .......................................................................... 112
Hymn 12: To Hera ............................................................................. 114
Hymn 24: To Hestia .......................................................................... 116
Hymn 27: To Artemis ........................................................................ 118
Hymn 28: To Athena .......................................................................... 122
Hymn 29: To Hestia .......................................................................... 126
Commentary
Hymn 9: To Artemis .......................................................................... 287
Hymn 10: To Aphrodite ..................................................................... 291
Hymn 11: To Athena .......................................................................... 295
Hymn 12: To Hera ............................................................................. 297
Hymn 24: To Hestia .......................................................................... 299
Hymn 27: To Artemis ........................................................................ 303
Hymn 28: To Athena .......................................................................... 311
Hymn 29: To Hestia .......................................................................... 317
Bibliography ............................................................................................. 321
Index .......................................................................................................... 327

Abbreviations and Sigla
LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen, 1955–2010)

LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich and
Munich, 1981–1999)
LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon9 (Oxford,
1995)
PMG Denys Page (ed.), Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962)
SH Hugh Lloyd-Jones and Peter Parsons (eds.), Supplementum
Hellenisticum (Texte und Kommentare 11: New York and Berlin,
1983)
SLG Denys L. Page (ed.), Supplementum Lyricis Graecis (Oxford,
1974)
Ancient authors are abbreviated as in LSJ, except that I have substituted

abbreviations of the appropriate Greek names for the Latinate titles as-
signed to the major Homeric Hymns (e.g. hAphr. in place of LSJ’s hVen.).
Standard commentaries on texts other than the hAphr. are cited by the edi-
tor’s name alone. The siglum * identifies a word or group of words that
appear in the same metrical position as the word or group of words lemma-
tized or under discussion.
Introduction
1. Anchises, Aeneas, and the Aeneidae
At Il. 2.820–1, as part of the catalogue of Trojan commanders, the poet (or
the Muse) offers a brief description of Aeneas’ ancestry: ĲઁȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ
Ĳȑțİ į૙ૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ / ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ șİ੹ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ (‘whom
bright Aphrodite bore to Anchises after she slept with him in the foothills
of Ida, a goddess with a mortal’). The story is mentioned again by Sthene-
lus at Il. 5.247–8, when he identifies the approaching Aeneas to Diomedes:
ǹੁȞİȓĮȢ įૅ ȣੂઁȢ ȝ੻Ȟ ਕȝȪȝȠȞȠȢ ਝȖȤȓıĮȠ / İ੡ȤİĲĮȚ ਥțȖİȖȐȝİȞ, ȝȒĲȘȡ įȑ Ƞ੆
ਥıĲૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ (‘Aeneas claims to be the son of faultless Anchises, while
his mother is Aphrodite’), and by the narrator in his introduction of the
goddess as she rescues her wounded son from Diomedes at Il. 5.312–13:
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ, / ȝȒĲȘȡ, ਸ਼ ȝȚȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ Ĳȑțİ ȕȠȣțȠȜȑȠȞĲȚ (‘Aphrodite, his
mother, who bore him to Anchises when Anchises was working as a cow-
herd’). The tale was also known to Hesiod, who offers the same basic in-
formation at Th. 1008–12: ǹੁȞİȓĮȞ įૅ ਙȡૅ ਩ĲȚțĲİȞ ਥȣıĲȑĳĮȞȠȢ ȀȣșȑȡİȚĮ, /
ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ ਸ਼ȡȦȚ ȝȚȖİ૙ıૅ ਥȡĮĲોȚ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ / ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ țȠȡȣĳોȚıȚ ʌȠȜȣʌĲȪȤȠȣ
਱ȞİȝȠȑııȘȢ (‘And fair-garlanded Cythereia bore Aeneas, after mingling in
desirable love-making with the hero Anchises on the peaks of windy, glen-
filled Ida’).
This seems a remarkable story, all the more so because Aeneas is one
of the greatest fighters on the Trojan side in the war against the Achaean
invaders. But Homer and Hesiod have nothing more to say of Aeneas’
conception and birth, and the hAphr. can accordingly be understood as—
among other things—an attempt to flesh out their intriguing but laconic
remarks. That the project seemed worth undertaking must have been due in
part to the extraordinary promise for Aeneas’ future issued by Poseidon at
Il. 20.302–8 (discussed in more detail below). Indeed, Aeneas’ shadow is
everywhere in the Hymn; the lovemaking of Anchises and Aphrodite mat-
ters not just because of what may be its larger cosmic consequences (dis-
cussed below, in section 3), but because it produced one of the most im-
portant heroes of the Trojan War and the epic tradition that told of it.
2 Introduction
Anchises is not a character in the Iliad,1 which is set a generation after

the events in the main narrative line of the hAphr., by which time his son
Aeneas is full-grown although seemingly still—as Homer would have it, at
least—unmarried.2 Anchises is now an old man (Il. 17.324 ȖȑȡȠȞĲȚ), with a
wife and a number of daughters, the oldest of whom, Hippodameia,3 is
married to the distinguished Trojan Alcathoos (Il. 13.428–33). That An-
chises has a devoted personal herald (Il. 17.323–5) suggests something
approaching royal status, while the implication of the mention at Il. 5.271–
2 of how he sent Aeneas off to war with two of his marvelous horses, keep-
ing the other four at home, is that he is resident somewhere other than at
Troy.4 That Anchises got his horses by secretly breeding mares to the stal-
lions Zeus gave Tros two generations earlier as compensation for the kid-
napping of Ganymede (Il. 5.268–9) is perhaps to be understood as symp-
tomatic of larger tensions within the clan, since the idea is apparently that
the stallions were under the control of either Priam’s father Laomedon or
Priam himself, who declined to share their services with their cousin.
As Aeneas himself tells the story to Achilleus at Il. 20.215–41, his
family began with Dardanus, a son of Zeus and a mortal woman (cf. Il.
20.303–5), who founded a city named Dardania (carefully distinguished
from contemporary Troy) somewhere on the slopes of Mount Ida. Darda-
nus had a son named Erichthonius; Erichthonius had a son named Tros;
and Tros had three sons, named Ilus, Assaracus, and Ganymede. Gany-
mede was carried off by the gods to pour Zeus’ wine, after which the fami-
ly split into two branches. Ilus’ branch, culminating in Priam and his son
Hector, ruled at Troy—alternatively referred to elsewhere as Ilium, pre-
sumably after its founder—while Assaracus’ branch, culminating in An-
chises and his son Aeneas, did not.
_____________
1 Neither Anchises nor Aeneas is mentioned in the Odyssey.
2 The Iliad makes no reference to Aeneas having a wife or children. In surviving
sources, Ascanius appears to be mentioned first by Hellanicus of Lesbos (discussed
below) sometime in the mid-5th century BCE.
3 The name is most easily understood as a reference to Anchises’ own interest in
horses (esp. Il. 5.268–72).
4 The Iliou Persis as summarized by Proclus makes no mention of Aeneas taking
Anchises with him when he escaped the city (arg. 8–9, p. 88 Bernabé), the impli-
cation being that the old man was not at that point generally imagined as resident
in the city. See below on the family’s more extended history and its implications
for Aeneas’ position.
1. Anchises, Aeneas, and the Aeneidae 3
Dardanus
Erichthonius
Tros
Ilus Assaracus Ganymede
Laomedon Capys
Tithonus Priam (other sons) Anchises
Paris Hector (other sons) Aeneas
The Iliadic Aeneas is thus a Trojan, but is not from the reigning branch of
the royal family or even from Troy itself. Instead, the catalogue of Trojan
forces in Iliad 2 distinguishes Aeneas from Hector by describing the for-
mer as a leader of Dardanians (819), i.e. of the inhabitants of other Trojan
cities scattered about the region. Achilleus hints at this as well, mocking
Aeneas at Il. 20.188–94 with a description of how he chased him along the
slopes of Mount Ida as far as Lyrnessus during the series of attacks on
Trojan centers one consequence of which, we learn elsewhere in the poem,
was the enslavement of Briseis, the object of Achilleus’ disastrous quarrel
with Agamemnon in Book I.5 hAphr. 280 (cf. 103–6) radically contracts
this chronology, implying that once Anchises receives the adolescent Ae-
neas from the mountain nymphs, the two of them will move to Troy, sc. to
settle there permanently. But in the Iliad Aeneas is still a rustic cowherd
_____________
5 For this campaign, cf. Il. 2.688–93; 19.295–6; 20.89–96; Cypr. arg. 61–3, p. 42
Bernabé.
4 Introduction
(Il. 20.188–9 ıİ ȕȠ૵Ȟ ਙʌȠ ȝȠ૨ȞȠȞ ਥȩȞĲĮ / ıİ૨Į, ‘I rousted you away from
your cows, when you were alone’), like his father before him (Il. 5.313; cf.
hAphr. 55), when Achilleus comes upon him far from the city.
As a Trojan, Aeneas almost by necessity gets the worst of most of the
individual conflicts with Achaeans into which he inserts himself. Both the
Homeric narrator and his characters nonetheless refer to him repeatedly as
among his side’s most powerful leaders (e.g. Il. 14.423–6; 17.512; 20.158),
and he appears again and again in the thick of the fighting: he engages in
single combat, for example, with Diomedes in Book 5 and with Achilleus
in Book 20; protects the wounded Hector at Il. 14.423–6; is involved in the
struggle for Sarpedon’s body at Il. 16.535–6, 608–25; and takes a leading
part in the fight that follows the death of Patroclus at Il. 17.323–49, 483–
93, 532–6. The poet himself claims that the Trojan people as a whole ‘hon-
ored [Aeneas] as a god’ (Il. 11.58), and the context (Hector, Polydamas,
Aeneas, and the three sons of the Antenor marshal for battle) leaves little
doubt that the reference is to his powerful fighting ability. But at Il.
13.460–1 Deiphobus finds Aeneas hanging back from battle, Įੁİ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ
ȆȡȚȐȝȦȚ ਥʌİȝȒȞȚİ įȓȦȚ, / Ƞ੢Ȟİțૅ ਙȡૅ ਥıșȜઁȞ ਥȩȞĲĮ ȝİĲૅ ਕȞįȡȐıȚȞ Ƞ੡ ĲȚ
ĲȓİıțİȞ (‘for he always felt resentment against bright Priam, since Priam
failed to honor him, although he was among the most distinguished men’),
while at Il. 20.180–1 Achilleus mocks Aeneas for—allegedly—hoping to
succeed Priam as king of Troy, despite the fact that Priam has sons of his
own and no intention of surrendering the throne to the other side of the
family.6
Homer’s Aeneas is thus a powerful fighter and an important leader of
his people’s forces, as well as a favorite of the gods, who twice rescue him
from certain death and in one case miraculously heal his wounds before
returning him to battle. But he is also a man who has not got the recogni-
tion he wants or, according to Poseidon, the position that will eventually
belong to him; for after the destruction of Priam’s branch of the family,
which Zeus has come to loathe, Poseidon prophesies, Aeneas will rule
over/among/for Trojans, wherever they may be at that point, as will his
descendants ever after (Il. 20.307–8): Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ ǹੁȞİȓĮȠ ȕȓȘ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ
ਕȞȐȟİȚ / țĮ੿ ʌĮȓįȦȞ ʌĮ૙įİȢ, ĲȠȓ țİȞ ȝİĲȩʌȚıșİ ȖȑȞȦȞĲĮȚ (‘But now, in fact,
powerful Aeneas will rule ȉȡȫİııȚȞ, as will the children of his children,
whoever should be thereafter’). The hAphr. makes no reference to the
as-yet-unborn Aeneas’ fighting ability, but instead insists that what will
lend him distinction in Troy, at least initially, will be his remarkable good
_____________
6 Indeed, the narrator’s assertion at Il. 13.461, about Priam’s consistent failure to
show Aeneas the honor he deserves, might with some justice be applied to the
Homeric narrator himself, who on that view of things systematically pushes An-
chises’ son to the side to focus instead on Priam, Hector, and Paris.
looks (279). Nor does the Hymn contain any hint of rivalry or hostility
between Anchises and the other members of what is simply described as
‘your [collective] family’ (201 ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȢ ȖİȞİોȢ). Indeed, the hAphr. ig-
nores the existence of other living members of what is, from an Iliadic
perspective, the badly fractured Trojan royal house, as if the throne were
vacant and all Aeneas will need to do to claim it (cf. 196) is appear in the
city (280) and accept his people’s adulation (cf. 279–82 with nn.). This
may be another example of the Hymn’s tendency to compress Iliadic chro-
nology: Aeneas will (eventually) make his way to Troy and will (at some
point thereafter) become the city’s king. But the reworking of the Iliadic
Poseidon’s prophecy about Aeneas and his descendants at hAphr. 196–7
has other agenda as well, as I argue in detail at the end of this section.
In 1800, August Matthiae suggested that the hAphr., and in particular
the promise to Anchises at 196–7, were composed to honor a family ruling
in the Troad in the poet’s own time that traced its descent back to Aeneas.7
Matthiae’s thesis—which echoed an earlier proposal by Robert Wood8 in
regard to Il. 20.307–8—rapidly became influential and has been endorsed
by (among others) Càssola and Faulkner in their editions of the Hymn.9
The thesis assumes both that we have historically reliable information
about princely Aeneidae in the Troad and that the prophecy at hAphr. 196–
7 refers to them in particular. Both assumptions are problematic, and con-
sideration of the question ultimately brings us back to the differences be-
tween the visions of the future of Anchises’ and Aeneas’ family in the Iliad
and in the Hymn.
That Aeneas left Troy before the city was sacked was asserted already
by Arctinus (8th/7th century BCE?), the poet to whom the Cyclic Iliou
Persis was traditionally attributed and who (according to Proclus) had the
hero escape to Mount Ida after Laocoon and one of his sons were killed by
snakes, but before the Achaean fleet returned in response to Sinon’s fire-
_____________
7 Matthiae (1800) 67–73. For the problem of the poem’s date, see below, Introduc-
tion 2 and 5.
8 Wood (1769).
9 Càssola (1975) 244–7; Faulkner (2008) 7–10. Baumeister (p. 251) and Gemoll (p.
260), the most important 19th-century editors of the Hymns, by contrast, were skep-
tical about Matthiae’s thesis, as were Allen, Halliday, and Sikes in their edition (p.
351). For the history of the question, see Smith (1981b), esp. 20–5, who discusses
a number of ancient texts (including Acus. FGrH 2 F 39; S. fr. 373; Menecr.Xanth.
FGrH 769 F 3) sometimes cited as evidence for the existence of historical Aenei-
dae, but that in fact have nothing to say about them. My general conclusions are in
line with Smith’s but less categorically dismissive of the possibility that real kings
claiming descent from Aeneas ruled in the Troad and elsewhere in the early histor-
ical period. Whether those kings had any influence on the composition of the
Hymn is a separate question; see below.
6 Introduction
signals, and the troops hidden inside the Wooden Horse emerged (i.e. that
night).10 Where Aeneas was imagined, in the earliest period, to have gone
after he left the city is unclear,11 although Stesichorus (early 6th century
BCE) may already have claimed that he set off for the West.12 The first
surviving specific reference to a resettlement of Troy by a member of Ae-
neas’ family, at any rate, is by Hellanicus of Lesbos (FGrH 4 F 31, pre-
served at D.H. 1.45.4–48.1) sometime in the middle of the 5th century
BCE. According to Hellanicus (as summarized by Dionysius), when the
lower city of Troy was taken by the Achaeans, Aeneas and a crowd of
fighters—many of them, like Aeneas, ethnically Trojan but not from Troy
itself—withdrew to the citadel, where the city’s sacred objects (ੂİȡ੹ Ĳ੹
_____________
10 Arg. 8–9, p. 88 Bernabé: ਥʌ੿ į੻ Ĳ૵Ț ĲȑȡĮĲȚ įȣıĳȠȡȒıĮȞĲİȢ Ƞੂ ʌİȡ੿ ĲઁȞ ǹੁȞİȓĮȞ
ਫ਼ʌİȟોȜșȠȞ İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ૓ǿįȘȞ (‘Aeneas’ people, disturbed by the omen, withdrew dis-
creetly to Mount Ida’). That Arctinus’ Aeneas took the city’s sacred objects, in-
cluding the Palladium, with him, is therefore unlikely, since according to D.H. 1.69
= Il.Pers. fr. 1.31–2, p. 90 Bernabé, the true Palladium remained concealed in a
shrine within the city until it fell (İੇȞĮȚ ĲȠ૨ĲȠ ਥȞ ૅǿȜȓȦȚ ĲȑȦȢ ਲ ʌȩȜȚȢ ਲȜȓıțİĲȠ
țİțȡȣȝȝȑȞȠȞ ਥȞ ਕȕȐĲȦȚ). The source for Dionysius’ claim that Aeneas, caught on
the acropolis after the lower city was in Achaean hands, took Troy’s sacred ob-
jects—including, in this version of the tale, a second Palladium rather than the only
real one—and escaped, eventually making his way to Italy (ਖȜȚıțȠȝȑȞȘȢ į੻ ĲોȢ
țȐĲȦ ʌȩȜİȦȢ ĲઁȞ ǹੁȞİȓĮȞ țĮȡĲİȡઁȞ ĲોȢ ਙțȡĮȢ ȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȞ, ਙȡĮȞĲĮ ਥț Ĳ૵Ȟ ਕįȪĲȦȞ
ĲȐ Ĳİ ੂİȡ੹ Ĳ૵Ȟ ȝİȖȐȜȦȞ șİ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ੖ʌİȡ ਩ĲȚ ʌİȡȚોȞ ȆĮȜȜȐįȚȠȞ … Ƞ੅ȤİıșĮȓ Ĳİ
țȠȝȓıĮȞĲĮ ਥț ĲોȢ ʌȩȜİȦȢ țĮ੿ ਥȜșİ૙Ȟ ਙȖȠȞĲĮ İੁȢ ૅǿĲĮȜȓĮȞ), is instead most likely
Hellanicus of Lesbos (for whose account of Aeneas and Ascanius, see below).
11 Horsfall (1979a) 373 mistakenly claims that Arctinus ‘provides … our first clear
attestation of the Trojans’ continued occupation of the Troad.’ Horsfall (1979a)
374 also garbles Arctinus’ treatment of the Palladium, confusing it with the wood-
en statue of Athena to which Cassandra clung as the city was being sacked (Il.Pers.
arg. 15–16, p. 89 Bernabé), and exaggerates the extent to which the presence of
Aeneidae in the Troad is attested (‘widely … in early texts’).
12 Cf. PMG 205, referring to the (notoriously problematic) Tabula Iliaca Capitolina
(ca. 15 BCE), the central panel of which is inscribed ǿȁǿȅȊ ȆǼȇȈǿȈ Ȁǹȉǹ
ȈȉǾȈǿȋȅȇȅȃ (‘The Sack of Troy, according to Stesichorus’), and which at an-
other point depicts Aeneas’ departure İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ૽ǼıʌİȡȓĮȞ (‘for the West’). See Hors-
fall (1979b), who is by and large skeptical of the supposed connection to Stesicho-
rus. Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 84 (cited at D.H. 1.72; see below), at any rate, certainly
maintained that Aeneas migrated to the West; cf. n. 14, above; Galinsky (1969)
103–90 (with particular attention to the archaeological evidence for the legend).
Note also Agathocles of Cyzicus (3rd century BCE?) FGrH 472 F 5, who accord-
ing to Festus reported that vaticinio Heleni inpulsum Aenean Italiam petivisse
(‘Aeneas, driven by Helenus’ prophecy, sought Italy’), but nonetheless also cited
conplures … auctores, qui dicant Aenean sepultum in urbe Berecynthia proxime
flumen Nolon (‘a number of authors, who report that Aeneas was buried in the city
of Berecynthia, near the Nolon River’, i.e. in Phrygia) and held that it was only one
of his descendants, named Rhomus, who made his way to Italy.
ʌĮĲȡ૵ȚĮ) and much of its wealth were stored. From there Aeneas orga-
nized the retreat of a large portion of Troy’s population to Mount Ida,
where the refugees were joined by people from other neighboring Trojan
towns. Eventually the Achaeans allowed Aeneas and his followers free
passage out of the country, along with all their possessions, although in the
event the evacuation was incomplete:
įİȟȐȝİȞȠȢ į੻ ĲĮ૨ĲĮ ǹੁȞİȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ȞȠȝȓıĮȢ ਥț Ĳ૵Ȟ ਥȞȩȞĲȦȞ țȡȐĲȚıĲĮ İੇȞĮȚ, ਝıțȐȞȚȠȞ
ȝ੻Ȟ ĲઁȞ ʌȡİıȕȪĲĮĲȠȞ Ĳ૵Ȟ ʌĮȓįȦȞ, ਩ȤȠȞĲĮ ĲȠ૨ ıȣȝȝĮȤȚțȠ૨ ĲȚȞĮ ȝȠ૙ȡĮȞ, ਸȢ ĭȡȪȖȚȠȞ
਷Ȟ Ĳઁ ʌȜİ૙ıĲȠȞ, İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ǻĮıțȣȜ૙ĲȚȞ țĮȜȠȣȝȑȞȘȞ ȖોȞ, ਩ȞșĮ ਥıĲ੿Ȟ ਲ ਝıțĮȞȓĮ ȜȓȝȞȘ,
ȝİĲȐʌİȝʌĲȠȞ ਫ਼ʌઁ Ĳ૵Ȟ ਥȖȤȦȡȓȦȞ ȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȞ ਥʌ੿ ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȚ ĲȠ૨ ਩șȞȠȣȢ ਕʌȠʌȑȝʌİȚ.
țĮ੿ ੭ȚțȘıİȞ ਝıțȐȞȚȠȢ Į੝ĲȩșȚ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ ĲȚȞ੹ Ƞ੝ ʌȠȜȪȞā ਥȜșȩȞĲȦȞ į੻ ੪Ȣ Į੝ĲઁȞ
ȈțĮȝĮȞįȡȓȠȣ Ĳİ țĮ੿ Ĳ૵Ȟ ਙȜȜȦȞ ૽ǼțĲȠȡȚį૵Ȟ, ਕĳİȚȝȑȞȦȞ ਥț ĲોȢ ૽ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ ਫ਼ʌઁ
ȃİȠʌĲȠȜȑȝȠȣ, țĮĲȐȖȦȞ Į੝ĲȠઃȢ ਥʌ੿ Ĳ੽Ȟ ʌĮĲȡȫȚĮȞ ਕȡȤ੽Ȟ İੁȢ ȉȡȠȓĮȞ ਕĳȚțȞİ૙ĲĮȚ.
Aeneas accepted these terms, regarding them as the best he could get under the cir-
cumstances. But he sent his oldest son, Ascanius, accompanied by some of the al-
lied troops, the majority of whom were Phrygians, to the region known as Dascy-
litis, where the Ascanian Lake is located, since the local inhabitants had invited
[Ascanius] to assume the kingship of their people. Ascanius settles there for only a
short period of time; when Scamandrius and Hector’s other descendants, who had
been allowed to leave Greece by Neoptolemus, came to him, he took them back to
his paternal domain, making his way to Troy.
Aeneas and his other sons, taking with them his father and the shrines of
their gods (Ĳ੹ ਩įȘ Ĳ૵Ȟ șİ૵Ȟ), on the other hand, sailed out through the
Hellespont to Pallene, on the other side of the Aegean, at which point Dio-
nysius’ summary of Hellanicus breaks off.13
Hellanicus says nothing about how long Ascanius and his descendants
were thought to have ruled at Troy or—more important for our purposes—
about the presence of kings supposedly descended from Aeneas in the area
in the historical period. This is instead purely legendary material and per-
haps merely an attempt to describe the fulfillment of Poseidon’s prophecy
at Il. 20.307–8. In any case, it tells us nothing about the presence of royal
Aeneidae in the Troad at the time the Hymn to Aphrodite was composed.14
Slightly more compelling information about Aeneidae in the Troad is
preserved at Strabo 13.607:
਩ıĲȚ įૅ ਲ ȝ੻Ȟ ȆĮȜĮȓıțȘȥȚȢ ਥʌȐȞȦ ȀİȕȡોȞȠȢ țĮĲ੹ Ĳઁ ȝİĲİȦȡȩĲĮĲȠȞ ĲોȢ
૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȖȖઃȢ ȆȠȜȓȤȞȘȢā ਥțĮȜİ૙ĲȠ į੻ ĲȩĲİ ȈțોȥȚȢ, İ੅Ĳૅ ਙȜȜȦȢ, İ੅Ĳૅ ਕʌઁ ĲȠ૨
ʌİȡȓıțİʌĲȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ ĲઁȞ ĲȩʌȠȞ, İੁ įİ૙ Ĳ੹ ʌĮȡ੹ ĲȠ૙Ȣ ȕĮȡȕȐȡȠȚȢ ਥȞ Ĳ૵Ț ĲȩĲİ ੑȞȩȝĮĲĮ ĲĮ૙Ȣ
_____________
13 But see n. 14, above.
14 For a catalogue of additional spots in the Troad (Gergitha, Percote, Colonai,
Chryse, Ophrunion, Sidene, Astyr, Scepsis, Polichna, Dascyleion, and Iliou Colo-
ne) supposedly settled (or resettled) by Scamandrius and Ascanius, see Dionysius
of Chalchis ap. ȈMOA E. Andr. 10.
8 Introduction
ਬȜȜȘȞȚțĮ૙Ȣ ਥĲȣȝȠȜȠȖİ૙ıșĮȚ ĳȦȞĮ૙Ȣ. ੢ıĲİȡȠȞ į੻ țĮĲȦĲȑȡȦ ıĲĮįȓȠȚȢ ਦȟȒțȠȞĲĮ İੁȢ

Ĳ੽Ȟ Ȟ૨Ȟ ȈțȒȥȚȞ ȝİĲȦȚțȓıșȘıĮȞ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȈțĮȝĮȞįȡȓȠȣ Ĳİ ĲȠ૨ ਰțĲȠȡȠȢ țĮ੿ ਝıțĮȞȓȠȣ
ĲȠ૨ ǹੁȞİȓȠȣ ʌĮȚįȩȢā țĮ੿ įȪȠ ȖȑȞȘ ĲĮ૨ĲĮ ȕĮıȚȜİ૨ıĮȚ ʌȠȜઃȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ ਥȞ ĲોȚ ȈțȒȥİȚ
ȜȑȖİĲĮȚ. ȝİĲ੹ ĲĮ૨ĲĮ įૅ İੁȢ ੑȜȚȖĮȡȤȓĮȞ ȝİĲȑıĲȘıĮȞ, İੇĲĮ ȂȚȜȒıȚȠȚ
ıȣȞİʌȠȜȚĲİȪșȘıĮȞ Į੝ĲȠ૙Ȣ țĮ੿ įȘȝȠțȡĮĲȚț૵Ȣ ੭ȚțȠȣȞā Ƞੂ įૅ ਕʌઁ ĲȠ૨ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ Ƞ੝į੻Ȟ
ਸĲĲȠȞ ਥțĮȜȠ૨ȞĲȠ ȕĮıȚȜİ૙Ȣ, ਩ȤȠȞĲȑȢ ĲȚȞĮȢ ĲȚȝȐȢ. İੇĲૅ İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ਝȜİȤȐȞįȡİȚĮȞ
ıȣȞİʌȩȜȚıİ ĲȠઃȢ ȈțȘȥȓȠȣȢ ਝȞĲȓȖȠȞȠȢ, İੇĲૅ ਕʌȑȜȣıİ ȁȣıȓȝĮȤȠȢ țĮ੿ ਥʌĮȞોȜșȠȞ İੁȢ
Ĳ੽Ȟ ȠੁțİȓĮȞ.
Old Scepsis lies above Cebren, on the highest part of Mount Ida, near Polichne; it
was referred to at that point as Scepsis, either for some other reason or because the
place offers a good view in all directions (periskepton), if we are to explain names
used by non-Greek peoples in the past by reference to Greek vocabulary. Later on
they were resettled 60 stades lower down, in modern Scepsis, by Hector’s son
Scamandrius and Aeneas’ son Ascanius; these two families are said to have ruled
in Scepsis for a long time. Afterward they moved to an oligarchy; then some Mile-
sians joined their city, and they lived under a democracy. The members of the fam-
ily were nonetheless referred to as ‘kings’ and had certain privileges. Afterward
Antigonus consolidated the Scepsians into a single city at Alexandria.15 But then
Lysimachus released them and they returned to their own land.16
This material is sometimes assigned to the 2nd-century BCE geographer
Demetrius of Scepsis, although Strabo (1st century BCE/1st century CE)
does not say as much, and the section that follows in fact seems to distin-
guish Demetrius’ judgments from those Strabo has just reported.17 But
whatever the original source and date of the material, it leaves no doubt
that in Roman times the democratic Scepsis of the classical period was
remembered as having had officials known as ‘kings’ who claimed descent
from sons of Hector and Aeneas. That these claims echoed similar asser-
tions put forward several centuries earlier by local dynasts, who eventually
lost most of their political power when the city became an oligarchy, is
possible—although, as Smith notes, Strabo (or Demetrius) seems unable to
cite any other evidence in support of the alleged connection.18 What is in
any case most important, is that this tenuous train of historical reasoning is
the only evidence for Aeneidae ruling in the Troad around the time h. 5
was composed. Unless we know—as we do not—that such individuals
_____________
15 I.e. Alexandria Troas, founded in 310 BCE by Antigonus Monopthalmos.
16 In 301 BCE.
17 Ƞ੅İĲĮȚ įૅ ੒ ȈțȒȥȚȠȢ țĮ੿ ȕĮıȓȜİȚȠȞ ĲȠ૨ ǹੁȞİȓȠȣ ȖİȖȠȞȑȞĮȚ Ĳ੽Ȟ ȈțોȥȚȞ (‘The
Scepsian believes that Scepsis was Aeneas’ royal seat’) = fr. 35 Gaede (who does
not include Strabo’s discussion of the early history of the place quoted above in his
edition of the fragments of Demetrius).
18 Smith (1981b) 37–8.
existed, there is little point in debating how the poet’s interest in them in-
fluenced the contents of his Hymn.19
As noted above, at Il. 20.307–8 Poseidon predicts that Aeneas’ de-
scendants will rule in Troy forever. The version of the prophecy at hAphr.
196–7 (addressed to Anchises) is rather different: ıȠ੿ įૅ ਩ıĲĮȚ ĳȓȜȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ,
੔Ȣ ਥȞ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ, / țĮ੿ ʌĮ૙įİȢ ʌĮȓįİııȚ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ (‘You
will have a son you will love, who will be a king in Troy; and the line of
your descendants will go on forever’). According to the hAphr., in contrast
to the Iliad, Aeneas will rule in Troy, and his line will continue. But where
the Aeneadai will end up (sc. after the city is sacked), and what their posi-
tion will be when they get there, is left unclear. The Hymn thus refers to
Aeneas’ descendants in a much less specific fashion than Iliad 20 does,
setting aside predictions of a continuing dynasty in favor of assertions of a
broader and more general sort. The prophecy at hAphr. 196–7 may be
nothing more than a cautious reworking of its problematic Iliadic exem-
plar. That it is addressed to anyone in particular is far from clear. But to the
extent that the Hymn imagines historical descendants of Anchises and Ae-
neas surviving into its own time, it presents them not as kings, and not
necessarily even as residents of the Troad, but as the broad mass of indi-
viduals scattered throughout the ancient Mediterranean who claimed de-
scent in one way or another from the notoriously peripatetic Trojan hero.20
_____________
19 Faulkner (2008) 7–10 notes that the birth of Aeneas is ‘one of the major themes’ of
the Hymn and that the poem pays considerable attention to earlier generations of
Anchises’ family, on the one hand, and to Aeneas’ glorious future, on the other. He
concludes (p. 10) that all this lends ‘considerable support to the hypothesis that the
Aineidai did exist and that the poet of Aphr. intended to praise them.’ But the po-
em’s preoccupation with Aeneas can be adequately explained on the uncontrover-
sial thesis (noted above) that its purposes include filling out the personal back-
ground of an important Iliadic character, and in particular the account of the
circumstances of his conception at Il. 2.820–1. Any alleged influence of supposed
contemporary Aeneidae on the contents and character of the Hymn must be argued
for on other grounds, and the argument will need to begin with a demonstration
that such individuals existed; that a thesis is not impossible is no reason to accept
it.
20 For legends of Trojan refugees settling in various parts of the Mediterranean, see
Perret (1942) 125–285; Bérard (1957) 350–68; Erskine (2001) 131–56.
10 Introduction
2. Date of Composition
The date of composition of the hAphr. is unknown. As I argue in detail in

Introduction 3, the poem refers repeatedly and at length to the Iliad and the
Odyssey, as well as—if less insistently—to the Hesiodic corpus. That it
was itself known to the author of the hDem. is likewise a reasonable if
unprovable hypothesis. On the basis of these relative dates, the hAphr. is
sometimes assigned to the first half of the 7th century BCE. This thesis is
consistent with the metrical evidence (see Introduction 5), but (as I argue in
detail below) is in fact little more than guesswork.
In his influential 1982 Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, Richard Janko
attempts to more precisely determine the relative dates of the substantially
preserved major archaic epic poems21 by the use of modern statistical
methods. As Milman Parry argued half a century earlier,
the language of oral poetry changes as a whole neither faster nor slower than the
spoken language, but in its parts it changes readily where no loss of formulas is
called for, belatedly when there must be such a loss, so that the traditional diction
has in it words and forms of everyday use side by side with others that belong to
earlier stages of the language.22
Janko’s book takes up the challenge implicitly posed by Parry’s observa-
tion:
[O]ne expects old formulae and archaisms to diminish in frequency through the
generations, as innovative phraseology and language creeps in; and if this could be
quantified, it might provide a yardstick useful for assigning approximate relative
dates to the poems. It ought therefore to be possible to count archaisms and inno-
vations in the poems and find out whether there is any consistent pattern in their
innovation.23
Indeed, Janko undertakes not just to fix relative dates for the poems we
have, including the hAphr., but to recover much of the otherwise obscure
history of the development of epic diction.
_____________
21 The Iliad and the Odyssey; Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days; the Hesiodic
Catalogue of Women; the pseudo-Hesiodic Aspis; and the Homeric Hymns to Deli-
an and Pythian Apollo (treated separately), Demeter, Hermes, and Aphrodite. For a
more detailed critique of Janko’s arguments, with specific reference to his handling
of the hAphr. as a test case, see Jones (2010).
22 M. Parry (1932) 12 = A. Parry (1971) 333.
23 Janko (1982) 189. In fact, Janko treats the existence of a consistent chronologically
determined pattern of archaism and innovation across the poems not as a hypothe-
sis to be tested (and thus perhaps rejected, if the data fail to conform to it), but as a
fundamental assumption. This has substantial consequences for the construction of
his argument, as discussed below.
2. Date of Composition 11
As diagnostic criteria, Janko adopts the following:24

• % of neglect of digamma
• % of masculine a-stem genitive singulars25 in -ĮȠ versus -İȦ
• % of a-stem genitive plurals in -ĮȦȞ versus -ȑȦȞ/-૵Ȟ
• % of o-stem genitive singulars in -ȠȚȠ versus -Ƞȣ
• % of resolvable -Ƞȣ (i.e. *-ȠȠ)
• % of o- and a-stem dative plurals in -ȠȚıȚ and -ȘȚıȚ/-ĮȚıȚ versus -
ȠȚȢ and -ȘȚȢ/-ĮȚȢ
• % of o- and a-stem dative plurals in -ȠȚȢ and -ȘȚȢ/-ĮȚȢ standing be-
fore a consonant versus before a vowel
• % of o-stem accusative plurals standing before a vowel versus be-
fore a consonant
• % of a-stem accusative plurals standing before a vowel versus be-
fore a consonant
• % of oblique forms of ǽİȪȢ in ǽ- (i.e. ǽોȞĮ, ǽȘȞȩȢ and ǽȘȞȓ) ver-
sus in ǻ- (i.e. ǻȚȩȢ and ǻȚȓ)26
Janko then calculates the individual poems’ values in each category, and
plots the results on a series of bar-graphs (his Figure 1),27 using a common
scale in which the figure for the Iliad always appears at point 0, while the
figure for the Theogony (widely believed to date several generations later
than the Iliad) always appears at point 3.28 In the case of neglect of digam-
ma, for example, the Iliad’s 17.2% = point 0 on the common scale; the
Odyssey’s 17.9% appears just to the right of this; the Theogony’s 33.7% =
point 3, considerably further right on the common scale; and the Works and
Days, hDem. and hHerm. appear even further to the right, at 37.9%, 45.9%
and 53.6%, respectively. The implication is that the rate of neglect of di-
gamma increased gradually within the epic dialect over time, a conclusion
strengthened by the fact that the individual poems appear on the common
_____________
24 Many of these figures are nuanced in ways that are irrelevant to the argument that
follows, and that are accordingly not detailed here.
25 I write ‘genitive singulars’ et sim. throughout in place of the pedantically correct
but uncolloquial ‘genitives singular’.
26 Janko (1982) 61–2 omits from consideration instances of accusative ǻȓĮ, on the
ground that the form is an innovation and relatively infrequent.
27 Janko (1982) 72–3.
28 If there are less than five instances of any particular phenomenon in an individual
poem, Janko dismisses the number from further consideration as likely to be statis-
tically insignificant. In most cases this is the % of masculine a-stem genitive singu-
lars in -ĮȠ versus -İȦ (for which figures are given only for the Iliad; the Odyssey;
the Theogony; the Works and Days; and the Catalogue of Women). But a total of
two criteria are omitted for the hDem., while a total of five are omitted for the
hDAp.
12 Introduction
scale more or less where we might have expected to find them on other
grounds.
In his Figure 229, Janko consolidates the results represented by his Fig-
ure 1 into a single line-graph, and identifies what he judges to be signifi-
cant clusters of criteria for individual poems. On this basis, Janko identifies
three groups:
• an Archaic group (Iliad, Odyssey, and hAphr.)
• an Advanced group (Theogony, Works and Days, Catalogue of
Women, hDem., and Hymn to Delian Apollo)
• and an Inconsistent group, i.e. poems whose values do not cluster
in any obvious way but are ‘wildly scattered’30 along the common
scale (Aspis, Hymn to Pythian Apollo, hHerm.).
Even more boldly, Janko uses his figures for the Iliad and the Theogony to
attempt to look backward in time to the moment when the individual phe-
nomena in question entered epic diction. Thus he reasons that if digamma,
for example, is neglected 17.2% of the time in the Iliad (= point 0 on the
common scale) but 33.7% of the time (i.e. almost exactly twice as often) in
the Theogony (= point 3 on the common scale), and if, as hypothesized—or
assumed—the linguistic development of the epic tradition proceeded at a
more or less fixed rate, then 0% neglect can be assumed at point -3 on the
common scale. Janko thus reconstructs a relative chronology not only of
the poems preserved for us but of epic diction as a whole, including an
‘Aeolic phase’ during which a Mycenean (or ‘Achaean’) tradition of sing-
ing was preserved and developed by Aeolic-speaking bards before being
passed on to the Ionic-speakers whose work we have today.
Most of the poems in Janko’s Archaic and Advanced groups appear on
the common scale in Figure 2 approximately where we might expect them
to on other grounds, seemingly confirming the soundness of his ‘glotto-
chronometric’ approach to the material. The Iliad and the Odyssey fall
close together, with the Odyssey’s values clustering slightly to the right of
the Iliad’s, suggesting that it is the younger of the two Homeric epics.
Then, after a gap, come the Theogony, the Hymn to Pythian Apollo, the
Works and Days, and the hDem., seeming in that—largely unremarkable—
order. The Catalogue of Women, on the other hand, appears to the left of
the Theogony on the common scale, suggesting that it is older rather than
younger than the other poem, as it ought almost certainly to be. But the
most substantial problem within these groups is the hAphr., five of whose
values (% of neglect of digamma; of a-stem genitive plurals in -ĮȦȞ; of o-
and a-stem dative plurals in -ȠȚıȚ and -ȘȚıȚ/-ĮȚıȚ; of o- and a-stem dative
_____________
29 Janko (1982) 74.
30 Janko (1982) 75.
plurals in -ȠȚȢ and -ȘȚȢ/-ĮȚȢ standing before a consonant; and of a-stem

accusative plurals standing before a vowel) Janko identifies as forming a
cluster that appears to put the poem contemporary with the Odyssey. Of the
hAphr.’s four remaining values, one (% of o-stem accusative plurals stand-
ing before a vowel) appears even further to the left (i.e. ‘earlier’) on the
common scale; two others (% of o-stem genitive singulars in -ȠȚȠ, and of
resolvable -Ƞȣ) appear close to the Theogony; and the last (% of oblique
forms of ǽİȪȢ in ǽ-) appears at the extreme right (‘late’) end of the com-
mon scale, at point 7. Not only are four of the nine individual values for the
hAphr. scattered far and wide along the common scale, therefore, but the
others do not cluster where they should on other, more traditional grounds
(i.e. somewhere between the Theogony and hDem.), and are instead found
far to the left of there and thus earlier, with the Homeric poems the hAphr.
quotes and alludes to repeatedly (see below, Introduction 3).
Janko is aware of the challenge posed to his general hypothesis by the
hAphr. in particular,31 and he responds by arguing that its composer must
have been working within a tradition in which development of the linguis-
tic features of the poem that seemingly cluster ‘too early’ was relatively
retarded, although changes in the use of o-stem genitive singulars had pro-
ceeded more or less as they did elsewhere. The dialect in question, Janko
suggests, must be a previously unremarked northern sub-species of Asiatic
Aeolic in which digamma—which the hAphr., by Janko’s calculation, at
least, respects even more emphatically than the two Homeric poems do32—
was not lost early on, as it has been already in Sappho. As for the relatively
advanced rate of use of forms of ǽİȪȢ in ǽ-, on the other hand, Janko main-
tains that ‘the best explanation seems to be that the hymnodist is trying
hard to compose in Ionic, and succeeding only too well in this particular.
As ǽȘȞȩȢ is not an archaism, this is not false archaism but hyperionism.’33
Janko’s response to the problems posed for his scheme by the hAphr. is
thus to argue that glottochronometric analysis must sometimes yield to
matters of dialect, on the one hand, and of idiolect (a singer’s individual
tendencies and interests), on the other. Once the adjustments such consid-
erations require are taken into account, the hAphr. can be seen to sit on the
_____________
31 Janko (1982) 152: ‘These facts are self-contradictory at first sight, and present very
real difficulties: is this a poem of Homeric date, with the more advanced features
random or regional in origin? Or is it post-Homeric, with the archaic diction a re-
gional characteristic or a deliberate choice (since it is too well-established to be
random)?’ As I argue in detail below, the alternative explanations Janko puts for-
ward here for the seeming peculiarity of the individual values assigned the hAphr.
amount to an admission that his glossochronometric hypothesis has been falsified.
32 15.9% neglect in the hAphr., vs. 17.2% in the Iliad and 17.9% in the Odyssey.
33 Janko (1982) 80.
14 Introduction
common scale precisely where we know that it belongs, somewhere be-

tween Hesiod and the hDem., and perhaps, on Janko’s view of things, spe-
cifically between the Theogony and the Works and Days.34 Janko’s expla-
nations for the apparent anomalies in the values for the hAphr. are patently
ad hoc and accordingly inspire little confidence. More to the point, his
approach to the problem fatally undermines his own larger thesis.
The fundamental basis of Janko’s argument is that epic diction is use-
fully conceived as a monolithic entity that evolved in a gradual, linear
fashion over time. If his statistics for the individual poems do not accord
with this hypothesis—as they patently do not—therefore, the difficulty
cannot be resolved by introducing considerations of regional dialect and
poetic idiolect, for such considerations are excluded by the larger thesis: if
the epic tradition varied from place to place, and if individual singers had
their own, sometimes eccentric styles, epic tradition is not a monolithic
entity. Janko’s elaborate attempts to adjust the results of his analysis to fit
what we know on other grounds to be the facts of the case thus amount to
an admission that his hypothesis has been falsified—or, put another way,
that his vision of epic diction is not a hypothesis (to be abandoned if the
data fail to support it) but an assumption (the falsification of which cannot
be tolerated). The glottochronometric hypothesis and the elaborate chain of
conclusions that depend on it must accordingly be abandoned. What re-
mains is to seek an alternative explanation of the phenomena Janko has
identified.
As noted above, Janko’s handling and organization of his data depend
on the notion that the Iliad and the Theogony can be treated as fixed points
on a ‘common scale’ that represents differences in epic diction, monolithi-
cally conceived, as functions of the passage of time. The Iliad is older than
the Theogony; the diction of the two poems is strikingly different in nu-
merous respects; and those differences must, on Janko’s analysis, reflect
developments within the epic tradition as a whole. The case of the hAphr.
in particular makes clear that Janko’s chronological hypothesis cannot be
maintained. All the same, the data remain. Of the three groups of poems
that Janko’s statistics appear to yield, only two can be taken to support his
larger hypothesis without special pleading that undermines the argument:
the Iliad and the Odyssey (which belong to Janko’s Archaic group) are
close on many criteria, as are, separately, the Theogony, Works and Days
and Catalogue of Women (which belong to Janko’s Advanced group, the
Catalogue being notably out of what would seem, on the chronological
hypothesis, to be its proper position there). Once Janko’s theory of mono-
lithic epic linguistic development is set aside, the bulk of the membership
_____________
34 Janko (1982) 179.
of these two groups can be seen as, in the first instance, merely confirming
what has always been known—or at least sensed—about much early epic
poetry: the Iliad and the Odyssey are a great deal like one another; the Hes-
iodic poems (with the exception of the pseudo-Hesiodic Aspis) are as well;
the two sets of poems are nonetheless quite distinct; and the hAphr.—
which ought, on chronological grounds, to fall into Janko’s Advanced
group, but does not—is emphatically the most ‘Homeric’ of the major
Hymns.
Whatever the differences and affiliations Janko identifies among these
poems may mean, therefore, they have nothing obviously or necessarily to
do with chronology. However we conceive of epic diction, it must have
evolved over time, as Parry (quoted at the beginning of this section) ar-
gued. But Janko’s Archaic and Advanced poems—perhaps better called
‘Homeric’ and ‘Hesiodic’—are more effectively understood as separated
primarily by regional and ‘school’ affiliation and then, within those param-
eters, by idiolect and most likely subject-matter as well. The surest proof of
this alternative hypothesis is the behavior of the Aspis and the Hymns on
Janko’s ‘common scale’. On a chronological interpretation of the data, not
only the hAphr. but the entire Inconsistent group (the Aspis, Hymn to Pyth-
ian Apollo, and hHerm.) are embarrassments that must be explained away:
they fail to conform to the hypothesis, in three of four cases radically so.
But if what the data illustrate are instead differences of other sorts, they
merely suggest that the Aspis and at least three of five major Hymns are
neither particularly Homeric nor particularly Hesiodic. The poems have
instead been produced by other authors or singers, working in other places
and in times not yet precisely identified, with their own idiosyncratic inter-
ests and tendencies.35 Whatever the inherent interest or significance of
Janko’s values, therefore, they cannot be used to date the hAphr. relative to
the other early epic poetry that survives for us. For that we are thrown back
on the more traditional criteria discussed below, in Introduction 3.
_____________
35 It accordingly seems worth asking precisely how ‘Hesiodic’ the hDem. really is,
given that three of its eight values fall distinctly in the ‘Homeric’ range, and per-
haps also how genuinely ‘Homeric’ the hAphr. is, given that four of its nine values
fall far to one side or the other of its central cluster.
16 Introduction
3. Poetic Affiliations of the Homeric Hymn

to Aphrodite36
Defining the nature of the interaction among early dactylic hexameter texts
and poets is a notoriously problematic undertaking. Much epic diction
appears to have been widely disseminated, so that the use of common for-
mulae, including whole lines and even groups of lines, alone does not
prove that one poet knew and borrowed from or adapted the work of an-
other. Thus hAphr. 35 Ƞ੡Ĳİ șİ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ Ƞ੡Ĳİ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ is iden-
tical to Od. 9.521, but also to Hes. fr. 204.117 and hMerc. 144; the echo
shows not that the hAphr.-poet knew Homer, ‘Hesiod’, and/or some of the
other Hymns (although he may have), but only that all four poets were
working within a broad inherited system of composition by formula.37 Nor
can more limited overlaps of language or content (e.g. hAphr. 44 ਙȜȠȤȠȞ
ʌȠȚȒıĮĲȠ țȑįȞૅ İੁįȣ૙ĮȞ / ~ hAp. 313; hAphr. 205 ʌȐȞĲİııȚ ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ / ~ hDem. 397) be taken to demonstrate direct contact be-
tween two works, since the phenomenon might only be evidence that both
poets had access to a regional or local sub-tradition of singing with its own
ideas, type-scenes and formulae. The issue is complicated further by our
almost complete lack of certainty about how and when the poems were
fixed in something like the form we have today, and about the relationship
between this (continuing process of? at least partially oral?) fixation and
the creation of the literary text we have.
My commentary proceeds on the assumption that the composer of the
hAphr. knew the Iliad and the Odyssey, and perhaps the Theogony and the
Works and Days as well, in more or less the form in which we have those
poems today. The Hymn is not merely in contact with, and its composer a
participant in broadly ‘Homeric’ and ‘Hesiodic’ traditions of singing. In-
stead, the poem interacts creatively and often aggressively with the Iliad
and the Odyssey in particular, the most obvious example of the tendency
being perhaps 59–68, which rework and combine Aphrodite’s visit to Pa-
phos after she and Ares are caught in bed together by Hephaestus in Odys-
sey 8, on the one hand, and Hera’s retreat into her chamber to prepare to
seduce Zeus in Iliad 14, on the other. Thus 59 ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞā ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ
ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȫįȘȢ ~ Od. 8.363 ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞā ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ
_____________
36 For the affiliations of the other ‘minor’ Hymns treated in this edition, see the end of
Introduction 5.
37 Cf. e.g. hAphr. 8 = Hes. Th. 13 ~ Il. 10.553 (nominative); hAphr. 235 = Il. 2.5 =
10.17 = 14.161 = Hes. fr. 209.1, cf. Od. 9.424 = 11.230. For a more complete col-
lection of traditional formulaic language in the hAphr., see the second apparatus;
Preziosi (1967).
3. Poetic Affiliations of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 17
ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȒİȚȢ, and 61–2 ਩ȞșĮ įȑ ȝȚȞ ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ ȜȠ૨ıĮȞ țĮ੿ Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ /
ਕȝȕȡȩĲȦȚ, ȠੈĮ șİȠઃȢ ਥʌİȞȒȞȠșİȞ Įੁ੻Ȟ ਥȩȞĲĮȢ = Od. 8.364–5; while 60 ਩Ȟșૅ
ਸ਼ Ȗૅ İੁıİȜșȠ૨ıĮ șȪȡĮȢ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ = Il. 14.169; 63 ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȦȚ
ਦįĮȞ૵Ț, Ĳȩ ૧Ȑ Ƞੂ ĲİșȣȦȝȑȞȠȞ ਷İȞ = Il. 14.172; for 64 ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ ʌȐȞĲĮ
ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ੿ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ, cf. Il. 14.187 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ੿ șȒțĮĲȠ
țȩıȝȠȞ (reworked again at 171–2); for 66 ıİȪĮĲૅ ਥʌ੿ ȉȡȠȓȘȢ, ʌȡȠȜȚʌȠ૨ıૅ
İ੝ȫįİĮ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ, cf. Il. 14.227–8; and 67–8 ੢ȥȚ ȝİĲ੹ ȞȑĳİıȚȞ ૧ȓȝĳĮ
ʌȡȒııȠȣıĮ țȑȜİȣșȠȞ. / ૓ǿįȘȞ įૅ ੆țĮȞİȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ, ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ ~ Il.
14.282–3 ૧ȓȝĳĮ ʌȡȒııȠȞĲĮ țȑȜİȣșȠȞ./ ૓ǿįȘȞ įૅ ੂțȑıșȘȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ,
ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ.38 The scale, complexity, and precision of this reworking
suggests interaction with fixed written texts, as also on a smaller scale at
inter alia the following points (all discussed at greater length in the com-
mentary):39
hAphr. 16 ਝȡĲȑȝȚįĮ ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ ~ Il. 20.70–1
ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȢ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒ / ૓ǹȡĲİȝȚȢ
hAphr. 18 țĮ੿ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ (among Artemis’ interests) ~ Il.
21.485 țĮĲૅ Ƞ੡ȡİĮ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ* (Hera’s description of Artemis’
proper sphere of interest)
hAphr. 42 țȣįȓıĲȘȞ įૅ ਙȡĮ ȝȚȞ ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ (of Hera; cf.
also hAphr. 22, of Hestia) ~ Il. 4.59 țĮȓ ȝİ ʌȡİıȕȣĲȐĲȘȞ ĲȑțİĲȠ
ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ (Hera’s self-description)
hAphr. 54–5 ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİıȚȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ / ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȞ
ȕȠ૨Ȣ (of Anchises as Aphrodite is made to fall in love with him) ~ Il.
21.448–9 ȕȠ૨Ȣ ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȢ / ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ ʌȠȜȣʌĲȪȤȠȣ
ਫ਼ȜȘȑııȘȢ (of Apollo working for King Laomedon of Troy)
_____________
38 In this light, the following more limited echoes deserve notice as well: 38 țĮȓ Ĳİ
ĲȠ૨ İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਥȟĮʌĮĳȠ૨ıĮ, cf. Il. 14.160 ੖ʌʌȦȢ ਥȟĮʌȐĳȠȚĲȠ ǻȚઁȢ
ȞȩȠȞ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ, 294 ੪Ȣ įૅ ੅įİȞ, ੮Ȣ ȝȚȞ ਩ȡȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳİțȐȜȣȥİȞ; 54 ੔Ȣ
ĲȩĲૅ ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİıȚȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ, cf. Il. 14.157 ǽોȞĮ įૅ ਥʌૅ
ਕțȡȠĲȐĲȘȢ țȠȡȣĳોȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ; 81 ıĲો įૅ … ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ * at Il. 14.297
ıĲો įૅ Į੝ĲોȢ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ; 107 ĲઁȞ įૅ ਱ȝİȓȕİĲૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ ~ Il.
14.193 Ĳ੽Ȟ įૅ țĲȜ.; 234 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ įȪȞĮĲૅ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ ~ Od. 8.298
Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ ਷Ȟ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ; 243 ਙȤȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪʌĲȠȚ,
cf. Il. 14.294 ਩ȡȦȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțȐȜȣȥİȞ
39 The hAphr. may also—and likely often does—refer to other texts that are now lost.
hAphr. 88 ੖ȡȝȠȚ įૅ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜોȚ įİȚȡોȚ ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑİȢ ਷ıĮȞ, for example, probably
represents a reworking of Cypria fr. 6, p. 48 Bernabé collum marmoreum torques
gemmata coronat, which we know only through a Latin translation. But we lack
any way to identify such references, and I have accordingly left the question al-
most entirely to the side.
18 Introduction
hAphr. 103 įȩȢ ȝİ ȝİĲ੹ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑૅ ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮ (Anchises’

prayer to the disguised Aphrodite), cf. Il. 6.476–7 įȩĲİ į੽ țĮ੿ ĲȩȞįİ
ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ / ʌĮ૙įૅ ਥȝȩȞ, ੪Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥȖȫ ʌİȡ, ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑĮ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ (Hector’s
prayer for his son Astyanax)
hAphr. 109 Ƞ੡ ĲȓȢ ĲȠȚ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚā Ĳȓ ȝૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚȞ ਥȓıțİȚȢ; (the disguised
Aphrodite’s shocked response to Anchises’ address to her as a god-
dess) ~ Od. 16.187 Ƞ੡ ĲȚȢ ĲȠȚ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚā Ĳȓ ȝૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȓıțİȚȢ; (the
transformed Odysseus’ response to Telemachus’ astonished insistence
that he must be a god)
hAphr. 110 ȖȣȞ੽ įȑ ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ (the disguised Aphrodite to An-
chises) ~ Il. 21.109 șİ੹ įȑ ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ* (Achilleus to Hector, just
before Hector’s death)
hAphr. 111–12 ૅȅĲȡİઃȢ … / ੔Ȣ ʌȐıȘȢ ĭȡȣȖȓȘȢ … ਕȞȐııİȚ and 137
ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ (the disguised Aphrodite’s description of her fa-
ther and her people), cf. Il. 3.184–9 ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ਕȞȑȡĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ, /
ȜĮȠઃȢ ૅȅĲȡોȠȢ țĮ੿ ȂȣȖįȩȞȠȢ ਕȞĲȚșȑȠȚȠ (Priam’s account of a youthful
visit to Phrygia)
hAphr. 118 ਥț ȤȠȡȠ૨ ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȠȢ ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ țİȜĮįİȓȞȘȢ (from the dis-
guised Aphrodite’s story of how Hermes abducted her) ~ Il. 16.183 ਥȞ
ȤȠȡ૵Ț ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȠȢ ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ țİȜĮįİȓȞȘȢ (from the story of how
Hermes abducted Polymele)
hAphr. 130 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖȫ ıૅ ੂțȩȝȘȞ, țȡĮĲİȡ੽ įȑ ȝȠȚ ਩ʌȜİĲૅ ਕȞȐȖțȘ (the dis-
guised Aphrodite’s explanation of why she has come to Anchises’ hut)
~ Od. 10.273 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅ İੇȝȚā țȡĮĲİȡ੽ įȑ ȝȠȚ ਩ʌȜİĲૅ ਕȞȐȖțȘ (Odys-
seus’ explanation to Eurylochus of why he must go to Circe’s house)
hAphr. 132 ਥıșȜ૵Ȟā Ƞ੝ ȝ੻Ȟ ȖȐȡ ıİ țĮțȠ੿ ĲȠȚȩȞįİ ĲȑțȠȚİȞ (the disguised
Aphrodite imagines Anchises’ parents) ~ Od. 4.64 ıțȘʌĲȠȪȤȦȞ, ਥʌİ੿
Ƞ੡ țİ țĮțȠ੿ ĲȠȚȠȪıįİ ĲȑțȠȚİȞ (Menelaus imagines Pisistratus’ and Te-
lemachus’ parents)
hAphr. 137 ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ ~ Il. 3.185 ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ਕȞȑȡĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ /
hAphr. 139 ȤȡȣıȩȞ Ĳİ ਚȜȚȢ ਥıșોĲȐ șૅ ਫ਼ĳĮȞĲȒȞ (the bride-gifts Otreus and
his wife will send to Anchises) ~ Od. 13.136 = 16.231 ȤĮȜțȩȞ Ĳİ
ȤȡȣıȩȞ Ĳİ ਚȜȚȢ ਥıșોĲȐ șૅ ਫ਼ĳĮȞĲȒȞ (the gifts Odysseus gets from the
Phaeacians)
hAphr. 140 ਕȖȜĮ੹ įȑȤșĮȚ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ (what Anchises ought to do with the gifts
sent by Otreus and his wife) * at Il. 1.23 = 377 (what Agamemnon
ought to do with the gifts brought by Chryses)
hAphr. 143 ੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ șİ੹ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț (Aphrodite in-
spires Anchises with longing for herself) = Il. 3.139 (Aphrodite in-
spires Helen with longing for Menelaus and Sparta)
hAphr. 160 ĲȠઃȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ țĮĲȑʌİĳȞİȞ ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ (the animals

killed by Anchises, whose skins cover the bed upon which he and Aph-
rodite are about to lie down) ~ Od. 11.574 ĲȠઃȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ țĮĲȑʌİĳȞİȞ ਥȞ
ȠੁȠʌȩȜȠȚıȚȞ ੕ȡİııȚ (of the great hunter Orion, who similarly slept with
a goddess and suffered for it)
hAphr. 163 ʌȩȡʌĮȢ Ĳİ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ șૅ ਪȜȚțĮȢ țȐȜȣțȐȢ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੖ȡȝȠȣȢ (Aphro-
dite’s jewelry; cf. 87–8) = Il. 18.401 (the jewelry Hephaestus produced
for Thetis)
hAphr. 164 Ȝ૨ıİ įȑ Ƞੂ ȗȫȞȘȞ (Anchises undresses Aphrodite before sleep-
ing with her) ~ Od. 11.245 / Ȝ૨ıİ į੻ ʌĮȡșİȞȓȘȞ ȗȫȞȘȞ (Poseidon un-
dresses Tyro before sleeping with her)
hAphr. 176–70 contain a series of references to the launching of Odysseus’
and Diomedes’ nighttime raid on the Trojans: 176 ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ Ĳૅ
ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİȞ * at Il. 10.138 ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİ, 177 ੕ȡıİȠ, ǻĮȡįĮȞȓįȘā Ĳȓ
Ȟȣ ȞȒȖȡİĲȠȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ੁĮȪİȚȢ; ~ Il. 10.159 ਩ȖȡİȠ, ȉȣįȑȠȢ ȣੂȑā Ĳȓ ʌȐȞȞȣȤȠȞ
੢ʌȞȠȞ ਕȦĲİ૙Ȣ; 180 ੮Ȣ ĳȐșૅā ੔ įૅ ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȚȠ * at Il. 10.162 ੮Ȣ ĳȐșૅā ੔ įૅ
ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȚȠ țȡĮȚʌȞ૵Ȣ ਕȞȩȡȠȣıİ40
hAphr. 186 ਩ȖȞȦȞ ੪Ȣ șİઁȢ ਷ıșĮ (Anchises claims not to have been fooled
by Aphrodite’s disguise) ~ Il. 22.9–10 Ƞ੝įȑ ȞȪ ʌȫ ȝİ / ਩ȖȞȦȢ ੪Ȣ șİȩȢ
İੁȝȚ (Apollo mocks Achilleus for having been fooled by his disguise)
hAphr. 193 șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ıોȚıȚ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ ȜȓȘȞ (Aphrodite en-
courages the terrified Anchises) ~ Od. 4.825 șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ʌȐȖȤȣ
ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ ȜȓȘȞ (Penelope’s dream encourages her about the
absent Telemachus)
hAphr. 196–7 ıȠ੿ įૅ ਩ıĲĮȚ ĳȓȜȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ, ੔Ȣ ਥȞ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ, / țĮ੿ ʌĮ૙įİȢ
ʌĮȓįİııȚ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ (Aphrodite’s prediction for Anchises’
family) ~ Il. 20.307–8 Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ ǹੁȞİȓĮȠ ȕȓȘ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ / țĮ੿
ʌĮȓįȦȞ ʌĮ૙įİȢ, ĲȠȓ țİȞ ȝİĲȩʌȚıșİ ȖȑȞȦȞĲĮȚ (Poseidon’s prediction for
Aeneas’ family)
hAphr. 199 ਩ıȤİȞ ਙȤȠȢ, ਪȞİțĮ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝʌİıȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ (Aphrodite’s
complaint about having slept with Anchises), cf. Il. 18.85 ਵȝĮĲȚ Ĳ૵Ț
੖Ĳİ ıİ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝȕĮȜȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ (Achilleus’ bitter complaint
about the gods having forced Thetis to sleep with his mortal father Pel-
eus)
hAphr. 202–4 ਵĲȠȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ȟĮȞșઁȞ īĮȞȣȝȒįİĮ ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ / ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ੔Ȟ įȚ੹
țȐȜȜȠȢ, ੆Ȟૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ ȝİĲİȓȘ / țĮȓ Ĳİ ǻȚઁȢ țĮĲ੹ į૵ȝĮ șİȠ૙Ȣ
ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪȠȚ (Aphrodite’s story of Ganymede), cf. Il. 20.234–5 ĲઁȞ
_____________
40 I take no position on the question of the date and authenticity of Iliad 10, except to
note that it appears to have been part of the text before the hAphr. was composed.
20 Introduction
țĮ੿ ਕȞȘȡȑȥĮȞĲȠ șİȠ੿ ǻȚ੿ ȠੁȞȠȤȠİȪİȚȞ / țȐȜȜİȠȢ İ੆ȞİțĮ ȠੈȠ, ੆Ȟૅ

ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ ȝİĲİȓȘ (Aeneas’ story of Ganymede)
hAphr. 206 ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ ਥț țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ (Ganymede ladles out nektar for the gods
in Zeus’ house) * at Il. 23.219 (Achilleus pours libations to the soul of
the dead Patroclus) ȞȑțĲĮȡ ਥȡȣșȡȩȞ * at Il. 19.538* (Thetis preserves
Patroclus’ corpse with infusions of ambrosia and nektar)
hAphr. 210–11 țĮȓ ȝȚȞ ǽİઃȢ ਥȜȑȘıİ, įȓįȠȣ įȑ Ƞੂ ȣੈȠȢ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ, / ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ
ਕȡıȓʌȠįĮȢ, ĲȠȓ Ĳૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ ĳȠȡȑȠȣıȚȞ (more of Aphrodite’s story of
Ganymede), cf. Il. 5.265–7 ĲોȢ ȖȐȡ ĲȠȚ ȖİȞİોȢ, ਸȢ ȉȡȦȓ ʌİȡ İ੝ȡȪȠʌĮ
ǽİȪȢ / į૵Ȥૅ ȣੈȠȢ ʌȠȚȞ੽Ȟ īĮȞȣȝȒįİȠȢ, Ƞ੢Ȟİțૅ ਙȡȚıĲȠȚ / ੆ʌʌȦȞ, ੖ııȠȚ
਩ĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਱૵ Ĳૅ ਱ȑȜȚȠȞ Ĳİ (Diomedes’ story of Ganymede)
hAphr. 215 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ǽȘȞઁȢ ੖ Ȗૅ ਩țȜȣİȞ ਕȖȖİȜȚȐȦȞ (Tros’ response to
Zeus’ gift of horses and explanation of Ganymede’s disappearance,
communicated via Hermes) ~ Od. 5.150 ਵȚૅ, ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥʌȑțȜȣİȞ
ਕȖȖİȜȚȐȦȞ (Calypso’s response to Zeus’ order, communicated via
Hermes, that she is to free Odysseus from her island)
hAphr. 218 ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ૅǾȫȢ (of Tithonus) * at Od. 15.250 (of
Cleitus)
hAphr. 234 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ įȪȞĮĲૅ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ (of the increas-
ingly decrepit Tithonus) ~ Od. 8.298 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ ਷Ȟ Ƞ੝įૅ
ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ (of Ares and Aphrodite in Hephaestus' trap)
hAphr. 237–8 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ ț૙țȣȢ / ਩ıșૅ Ƞ੆Ș ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ ਥȞ੿ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȠ૙ıȚ
ȝȑȜİııȚȞ (Aphrodite’s description of Tithonus) ~ Od. 11.393–4 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ
ț૙țȣȢ / Ƞ੆Ș ʌİȡ ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ ਥȞ੿ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȠ૙ıȚ ȝȑȜİııȚȞ (Odysseus’ de-
scription of Agamemnon in the Underworld)
hAphr. 242 ʌȩıȚȢ țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅ȘȢ (Aphrodite's fantasy about Anchises) ~
Od. 6.244 ʌȩıȚȢ țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅Ș* (Nausicaa's fantasy about Odysseus)
hAphr. 247–8 ੕ȞİȚįȠȢ … / ਩ııİĲĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ (Aphodite’s
concern for her standing among the other gods), cf. Il. 16.498–9
੕ȞİȚįȠȢ / ਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ (the dying Sarpedon de-
scribes the consequences if his armor is plundered)
hAphr. 255 ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ (of Aphrodite’s encounter with Anchises) *
at Il. 2.821 ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ (of Aphrodite’s en-
counter with Anchises)41
_____________
41 Note also the following, which may represent more generic language: hAphr. 97–
99 ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ Į੆ Ĳૅ ਙȜıİĮ țĮȜ੹ ȞȑȝȠȞĲĮȚ / țĮ੿ ʌȘȖ੹Ȣ ʌȠĲĮȝ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ʌȓıİĮ ʌȠȚȒİȞĲĮ =
Il. 20.8–9; hAphr. 105 įȘȡઁȞ ਩ȣ ȗȫİȚȞ țĮ੿ ੒ȡ઼Ȟ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ ~ Od. 10.498 ਵșİȜૅ
਩ĲȚ ȗȫİȚȞ țĮ੿ ੒ȡ઼Ȟ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ; hAphr. 191 ~ Il. 14.193 Ĳ੽Ȟ įૅ țĲȜ.
Apparent echoes of Hesiod are more limited in number and, in most cases,
also of less obviously programmatic significance:
hAphr. 1 ਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ /, cf. Op. 521 Ƞ੡ ʌȦ ਩ȡȖૅ İੁįȣ૙Į
ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ / (of the ‘soft-skinned virgin girl’, for whom
see 14)
hAphr. 14 ʌĮȡșİȞȚț੹Ȣ ਖʌĮȜȩȤȡȠĮȢ * at Op. 519 -ોȢ -ȠȢ42
hAphr. 22–3, cf. Th. 454 for Hestia as Cronus’ first-born and thus (when
regurgitated) his last as well
hAphr. 29 țĮȜઁȞ ȖȑȡĮȢ ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚȠ /, cf. Th. 585 Ĳİ૨ȟİ țĮȜઁȞ țĮțઁȞ ਕȞĲૅ
ਕȖĮșȠ૙Ƞ / (note the abnormal short initial syllable in țĮȜȩȞ, as also in
the Hymn)
hAphr. 43 ǽİઃȢ įૅ ਙĳșȚĲĮ ȝȒįİĮ İੁįȫȢ * at Th. 550
hAphr. 77 ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ ਸ਼ȡȦĮ, cf. Th. 1009 ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ ਸ਼ȡȦȚ* (in a description of
Aeneas’ birth)
hAphr. 249 ਥȝȠઃȢ ੑȐȡȠȣȢ (Aphrodite’s nasty comments among the gods),
cf. Th. 205 ʌĮȡșİȞȓȠȣȢ Ĳૅ ੑȐȡȠȣȢ* ȝİȚįȒȝĮĲȐ Ĳૅ ਥȟĮʌȐĲĮȢ Ĳİ (Aphro-
dite’s sphere of influence)
hAphr. 258 ~ 285 ੕ȡȠȢ ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİ (of Mt. Ida as the residence of
the nymphs) * at Th. 2 (of Mt. Helicon as the residence of the Muses)
hAphr. 264–5 ਱ૅ ਥȜȐĲĮȚ ਱੻ įȡȪİȢ ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ / … ਩ĳȣıĮȞ ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿
ȕȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ, cf. Op. 509–11 ʌȠȜȜ੹Ȣ į੻ įȡ૨Ȣ ਫ਼ȥȚțȩȝȠȣȢ ਥȜȐĲĮȢ Ĳİ
ʌĮȤİȓĮȢ / Ƞ੡ȡİȠȢ ਥȞ ȕȒııȘȚȢ ʌȚȜȞ઼Ț ȤșȠȞ੿ ʌȠȣȜȣȕȠĲİȓȡȘȚ
hAphr. 283 ȝİȝȞȘȝȑȞȠȢ ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ (Aphrodite’s orders to Anchises) *
at Op. 623 ȖોȞ įૅ ਥȡȖȐȗİıșĮȚ ȝİȝȞȘȝȑȞȠȢ, ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ (the narra-
tor’s orders to Perses)43
The relationship of the hAphr. to the hDem. (probably 6th century BCE or
earlier) is more problematic. Richardson, followed closely by Faulkner,
notes the following parallels between the two texts:44
_____________
42 Janko (1982) 165–9 argues that the hAphr. is Hesiod’s model, on the basis of the
fact that 14 comes from the proem, making it more likely to be an object of imita-
tion; the presence of the adjective ʌĮȡșİȞȚțȩȢ at Op. 63, immediately preceding a
reference to Athena teaching Pandora how to weave at Op. 63–5; and three possi-
ble Aeolisms at Op. 510, 526, 534. The first argument is contradicted by the rela-
tionship between hAphr. 257, 284 and hDem. 5, 8, as Janko himself acknowledges;
the second is very weak, particularly since the idea of Athena weaving cloth her-
self and teaching others to do so appears to be traditional (cf. 14–15 n.), and
ʌĮȡșİȞȚțȩȢ belongs to a separate construction; and the third begs the question of
whether the hAphr. is itself ‘Aeolic’ in any significant way (as it does not appear to
be).
43 Note also hAphr. 5 ਱ȝ੻Ȟ ੖ıૅ ਵʌİȚȡȠȢ ʌȠȜȜ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȢ ~ Th. 582
țȞȫįĮȜૅ ੖ıૅ ਵʌİȚȡȠȢ įİȚȞ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ ਱į੻ șȐȜĮııĮ (not easily understood as a specif-
ic echo; see the second apparatus ad loc.); hAphr. 8 = Hes. Th. 13 (but also ~ Il.
10.553 (nominative), and thus presumably formular).
22 Introduction
hAphr. 31–2 ʌ઼ıȚȞ įૅ ਥȞ ȞȘȠ૙ıȚ șİ૵Ȟ ĲȚȝȐȠȤȩȢ ਥıĲȚȞ, / țĮ੿ ʌĮȡ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ
ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚ șİ૵Ȟ ʌȡȑıȕİȚȡĮ ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ ~ hDem. 268–9 İੁȝ੿ į੻ ǻȘȝȒĲȘȡ
ĲȚȝȐȠȤȠȢ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȞ / ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȢ șȘȞĲȠ૙ıȓ Ĳૅ ੕ȞİĮȡ țĮ੿ ȤȐȡȝĮ
ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ
hAphr. 58 șȣȫįİĮ ȞȘȩȞ ~ hDem. 355 șȣȫįİȠȢ ਩ȞįȠșȚ ȞȘȠ૨, 385 ȞȘȠ૙Ƞ …
șȣȫįİȠȢ
hAphr. 82 ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ ȝȑȖİșȠȢ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ੒ȝȠȓȘ ~ hDem. 145–6
ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ ਕįȝȒȢ / ȀĮȜȜȚįȓțȘ … İੇįȠȢ ਕȡȓıĲȘ
hAphr. 136 Ƞ੡ ıĳȚȞ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȞȣઁȢ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ, ਕȜȜૅ İੁțȣ૙Į ~ hDem. 83–4 Ƞ੡
ĲȠȚ ਕİȚț੽Ȣ / ȖĮȝȕȡઁȢ … ਝȚįȠȞİȪȢ
hAphr. 156 țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ / * at hDem. 194
hAphr. 157 / ਥȢ ȜȑȤȠȢ İ੡ıĲȡȦĲȠȞ ~ hDem. 285 ਕʌૅ İ੝ıĲȡȫĲȦȞ ȜİȤȑȦȞ
hAphr. 173–5 ਩ıĲȘ ਙȡĮ țȜȚıȓȘȚā İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣ ‫ۃ‬į੻‫ ۄ‬ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ,
țȐȜȜȠȢ į੻ ʌĮȡİȚȐȦȞ ਕʌȑȜĮȝʌİȞ / ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ ~ hDem. 188–9 ਲ įૅ ਙȡૅ
ਥʌૅ Ƞ੝įઁȞ ਩ȕȘ ʌȠı੿ țĮȓ ૧Į ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ, ʌȜોıİȞ į੻ șȪȡĮȢ
ıȑȜĮȠȢ șİȓȠȚȠ
hAphr. 205 ʌȐȞĲİııȚ ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ / ~ hDem. 397 ʌȐȞĲİııȚ
ĲİĲȚȝ[ȑȞȘ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚ]ıȚȞ /
hAphr. 257 ȞȪȝĳĮȚ … ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ ~ hDem. 5 țȠȪȡȘȚıȚ … ȕĮșȣțȩȜʌȠȚȢ
hAphr. 279 ȝȐȜĮ Ȗ੹ȡ șİȠİȓțİȜȠȢ ਩ıĲĮȚ / ~ hDem. 159 į੽ Ȗ੹ȡ șİȠİȓțİȜȩȢ
ਥııȚ
hAphr. 284 ȞȪȝĳȘȢ țĮȜȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ ~ hDem. 8 țĮȜȣțȫʌȚįȚ țȠȪȡȘȚ, 420
ૅȍțȣȡȩȘ țĮȜȣț૵ʌȚȢ
Most of these cases merely represent shared vocabulary items not attested
elsewhere in early epic, or a common use of previously attested vocabulary
in a new (but in no case strikingly unexpected) context.45 There may thus
be an implication of an affiliation between individual singers, or between
_____________
44 Richardson (1974) 42; Faulkner (2008) 38–9. Richardson also cites hAphr. 2ff ~
hDem. 22–3, 44–6, but simultaneously withdraws the suggestion, noting ‘but this
is a parallel of form of expression, not of language’.
45 Faulkner (2008) 40 argues that in the case of hAphr. 257 ȞȪȝĳĮȚ … ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ ~
hDem. 5 țȠȪȡȘȚıȚ … ȕĮșȣțȩȜʌȠȚȢ ‘the short datives plural in the latter may be
suggestive of secondary modification’. But (1) both the short and the long forms of
the dative plural were always available in the vernacular to epic singers, so that the
presence of one or the other in any passage proves nothing about its relative date,
unless one accepts Janko’s system of glottochronometrics (discussed at length
above, in Introduction 2); (2) in any case, even if one accepts Janko’s theory, and
thus the presumed priority of long forms of the dative plural, the fact that the
hAphr. passage is in the nominative makes it impossible to know whether it is old-
er than the hDem. passage (and thus perhaps a model for it) or younger than it (and
thus perhaps derived from it).
the local or regional traditions within which they grew up and operated. As
noted above, however, this is different from suggesting that one Hymn
served (as written text or oral song) as a specific model for the other. Rich-
ardson—who is cautious in his assessment of the case, but who appears to
favor the notion that the hAphr. influenced the hDem.—is aware of the
limitations of the evidence, and identifies as the ‘most important’ of his
parallels to the hDem. those at hAphr. 156, 157, 173–5. All these, he notes,
come from the section of the latter poem where Aphrodite and Anchises go
to bed together and she subsequently wakes him up and reveals herself to
be a goddess, the implication being that this strengthens the case for a sys-
tematic pattern of allusion to or borrowing by the composer of the hDem.
But hAphr. 157 / ਥȢ ȜȑȤȠȢ İ੡ıĲȡȦĲȠȞ ~ hDem. 285 ਕʌૅ İ੝ıĲȡȫĲȦȞ ȜİȤȑȦȞ
is a bland and uninstructive parallel, as Richardson acknowledges in his
note ad loc., while the fact that the phrase țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ /
occurs at both hAphr. 156 and hDem. 194 may suggest that the two poets
drew on a common stock of formulae not available to the Iliad- and Odys-
sey-poets or to Hesiod, but does not demonstrate a direct relationship be-
tween the Hymns.
The case for dependence of the hDem. on the hAphr. (or vice versa)
thus depends on two sets of parallels: hAphr. 31–2 ~ hDem. 268–9, and
hAphr. 173–5 ~ hDem. 188–9. As for the first set, ĲȚȝȐȠȤȠȢ (not found in
Homer, Hesiod, or the other Hymns) is an unexpected, presumably Aeolic
form of the word, which is elsewhere always ĲȚȝȠ૨ȤȠȢ. So too, third-person
ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ (in the same sedes at e.g. Il. 17.690; Od. 17.102; Hes. Op. 745) is
appropriate at hAphr. 32 but arguably awkward at hDem. 269, where one
might have expected first-person ĲȑĲȣȖȝĮȚ (not attested in early epic) in-
stead, arguably suggesting that the latter passage is modeled on the former.
As noted above, however, shared vocabulary in and of itself cannot prove
the direct dependence of one early epic text on another. Nor is the use of
ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ rather than ĲȑĲȣȖȝĮȚ compelling evidence that the hDem.-poet
knew the hAphr., for the focalization patently shifts in the relative clause in
the hDem., as the goddess describes herself as she appears to those who
render her the honor referred to in ĲȚȝȐȠȤȠȢ, so that the third-person verb is
appropriate; and anyone capable of composing the rest of the Hymn to
Demeter will have been able to independently alter the third-person form to
the metrically equivalent first-person at line-end, in any case, if he wished
to do so.
As for the second set of parallels: as was noted previously, the fact that
both poets used the words ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ in the same sedes may
well show nothing more than that they had access to the same regional or
local oral-formulaic tradition. More significant, Demeter’s head ought to
touch not the roofbeam (the normal sense of ȝȑȜĮșȡȠȞ), as in the hAphr.,
24 Introduction
but the lintel, if she is standing in the doorway of Metaneira’s house, and
Metaneira inexplicably ignores her visitor’s suddenly transformed appear-
ance in any case. But ‘the god’s epiphany’ appears to be a type-scene, as
Richardson acknowledges in his commentary, and the fact that the hDem.-
poet has arguably mishandled elements of it accordingly cannot be taken to
show that he knew the hAphr., where those elements are more smoothly
integrated into the larger action. That the hDem. is somehow dependent on
(and so later than) the hAphr. thus remains possible, but the point cannot
be demonstrated.
The next reference to the hAphr. is in the Hellenistic period, when it
appears to have been familiar to Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius,
presumably because a copy was preserved in the Library at Alexandria:
Call. h. 4.258 įȚĮʌȡȣıȓȘȞ ੑȜȠȜȣȖȒȞ / (of the cries of the nymphs on Delos
at Apollo’s birth), cf. hAphr. 19 įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȚ Ĳૅ ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ / (in a cata-
logue of Artemis’ interests)
A.R. 1.850 ȀȪʌȡȚȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİȞ / (of the Lemnian wom-
en), cf. hAphr. 2 ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİȞ46
Both passages are patently learned quotations of the Hymn. In addition,
Faulkner argues for echoes of the hAphr. in Callimachus’ hymns to Arte-
mis and Demeter:
h. 3.26–7 ੬Ȣ ਲ ʌĮ૙Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ ȖİȞİȚȐįȠȢ ਵșİȜİ ʌĮĲȡȩȢ / ਚȥĮıșĮȚ (of Arte-
mis), cf. hAphr. 27 ਖȥĮȝȑȞȘ țİĳĮȜોȢ ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ (of
Hestia)
h. 3.122 / ਕȜȜȐ † ȝȚȞ İੁȢ ਕįȓțȦȞ ਩ȕĮȜİȢ ʌȩȜȚȞ (of Artemis and her arrows),
cf. hAphr. 20 įȚțĮȓȦȞ Ĳİ ʌĲȩȜȚȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ / (at the end of a catalogue of
Artemis’ interests)
h. 6.58 țİĳĮȜ੹ įȑ Ƞੂ ਚȥĮĲૅ ૅȅȜȪȝʌȦ (of Demeter), cf. hAphr. 173–4
ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ
As for h. 3.26–7, the verb used of taking hold of another person in suppli-
cation is most often ȜĮȝȕȐȞȦ, and the part seized is generally the knees
rather than (or in addition to) the beard (e.g. Od. 6.142 ਲ਼ ȖȠȪȞȦȞ
_____________
46 Faulkner (2008) 51 also compares A.R. 1.803 ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਸ਼ Ĳȑ ıĳȚȞ șȣȝȠĳșȩȡȠȞ
਩ȝȕĮȜİȞ ਙĲȘȞ, for which there are more substantial parallels at e.g. Il. 19.88 Ƞ੆ Ĳȑ
ȝȠȚ İੁȞ ਕȖȠȡોȚ ĳȡİı੿Ȟ ਩ȝȕĮȜȠȞ ਙȖȡȚȠȞ ਙĲȘȞ (of Zeus, Fate and the Erinys). The
echoes of hAphr. 7 ĲȡȚıı੹Ȣ įૅ Ƞ੝ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌĮĲોıĮȚ at A.R.
3.152 ਷ ȝȑȞ ĲȠȚ į૵ȡȩȞ Ĳİ ʌĮȡȑȟȠȝĮȚ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌĮĲȒıȦ (Aphrodite to Eros), and of
hAphr. 199 at A.R. 3.464 / ĲȓʌĲİ ȝİ įİȚȜĮȓȘȞ Ĳȩįૅ ਩ȤİȚ ਙȤȠȢ are even less compel-
ling, as Faulkner admits at the same time as he cites them as at least ‘worth consid-
ering’.
ȜȓııȠȚĲȠ ȜĮȕȫȞ). The situations in the hAphr. and in Callimachus are also
similar: a young female goddess takes hold of—or attempts to take hold
of—Zeus’ head/beard in order to reinforce a request that she be allowed to
remain a virgin. But Callimachus’ language finds better parallels at e.g. Il.
10.454–5 ਷, țĮ੿ ੒ ȝȑȞ ȝȚȞ ਩ȝİȜȜİ ȖİȞİȓȠȣ … / ਖȥȐȝİȞȠȢ ȜȓııİıșĮȚ, and the
argument for a specific connection with the hAphr. cannot be pressed. So
too with h. 3.122, the idea that Artemis takes an interest in the degree of
justice displayed by (the inhabitants of) individual cities is unusual, at least
for the ǹrchaic period. But Callimachus’ language is too generic, and the
reference insufficiently developed to allow for a vigorous argument in
favor of a direct, specific reworking of the older passage. As for h. 6.58,
finally, Faulkner himself acknowledges that the primary intertext, if there
is one, must be hDem. 188–9 (for which, see above) rather than the hAphr.
Echoes of the hAphr. have also been detected by Janko and Faulkner47
in the following passages from Moschus’ Europa (2nd century BCE):
Eur. 1 Ǽ੝ȡȫʌȘȚ ʌȠĲ੻ ȀȪʌȡȚȢ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ਸțİȞ ੕ȞİȚȡȠȞ, cf. hAphr. 2
ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİȞ
Eur. 76 ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਴ ȝȠȪȞȘ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ țĮ੿ ǽોȞĮ įĮȝȐııĮȚ, cf. hAphr. 32–9,
esp. 37–8 țĮȓ Ĳİ ʌȐȡİț ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİ ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȠȣ, / ੖Ȣ Ĳİ
ȝȑȖȚıĲȩȢ Ĳૅ ਥıĲ੿ ȝİȖȓıĲȘȢ Ĳૅ ਩ȝȝȠȡİ ĲȚȝોȢ
Eur. 78 ʌĮȡșİȞȚțોȢ Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȦȞ ਕĲĮȜઁȞ ȞȩȠȞ ਥȟĮʌĮĲોıĮȚ (of Zeus’ treatment
of Europa), cf. hAphr. 38 țĮȓ Ĳİ ĲȠ૨ İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ
ਥȟĮʌĮĳȠ૨ıĮ (of Aphrodite’s treatment of Zeus)
Eur. 93 ıĲો į੻ ʌȠį૵Ȟ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ ਕȝȪȝȠȞȠȢ Ǽ੝ȡȦʌİȓȘȢ (of Zeus), cf.
hAphr. 81 ıĲો įૅ Į੝ĲȠ૨ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ (of Aph-
rodite before Anchises)
Eur. 111 ਴ į੻ ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ ĳȓȜĮȢ țĮȜȑİıțİȞ ਦĲĮȓȡĮȢ (of Europa, about
to be carried off to sea on the bull’s back), cf. hAphr. 156 ਪȡʌİ
ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ, țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ (of Aphrodite, about to
enter Anchises’ house)
Eur. 154 șȐȡıİȚ ʌĮȡșİȞȚțȒā ȝ੽ įİȓįȚșȚ ʌȩȞĲȚȠȞ ȠੇįȝĮ (the disguised Zeus
to Europa), cf. hAphr. 193 șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ıોȚıȚ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ
ȜȓȘȞ (Aphrodite, now visible in divine form, to Anchises)
Eur. 160–1 ਥȟ ਥȝȑșİȞ į੻ țȜȣĲȠઃȢ ĳȚĲȪıİĮȚ ȣੈĮȢ / Ƞ੄ ıțȘʌĲȠ૨ȤȠȚ
ਚʌĮȞĲİȢ ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȠȚıȚȞ ਩ıȠȞĲĮȚ (Zeus’ promise to Europa), cf.
hAphr. 196–7 ıȠ੿ įૅ ਩ıĲĮȚ ĳȓȜȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ, ੔Ȣ ਥȞ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ, /
_____________
47 Janko (1982) 268 n. 1 (citing Eur. 76ff ~ hAphr. 32ff; Eur. 154–5 ~ hAphr. 193;
Eur. 160 ~ hAphr. 196–7); Faulkner (2008) 51 (citing Eur. 1, 76 ~ hAphr. 2; Eur.
78 ~ hAphr. 38; Eur. 93 ~ hAphr. 81; Eur. 111 ~ hAphr. 156), who mistakenly
claims to be the first to argue that Moschus drew on the Hymn.
26 Introduction
țĮ੿ ʌĮ૙įİȢ ʌĮȓįİııȚ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ (Aphrodite’s promise to

Anchises)
Of the proposed parallels, Eur. 93 and 154 can immediately be set aside,
since ıĲો … ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ appears in the first in a standard Homeric sedes
(also Il. 14.297; 24.286; Od. 15.150) and there are otherwise no resem-
blances between the lines, while the supposed model for the second pas-
sage is itself adapted direct from Od. 4.825 șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ʌȐȖȤȣ ȝİĲ੹
ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ ȜȓȘȞ, so that there is no need to think of the hAphr. in particu-
lar as Moschus’ model. Likewise, although ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ is attested in
this sedes only at Eur. 111 and hAphr. 156, other forms of ȝİĲĮıĲȡȑĳȦ
appear there at Il. 8.258; 11.447; 15.52; Od. 2.67, while ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİȓȢ
begins at the same point in the line at Il. 11.595; 15.591; 17.114 (all / ıĲો
į੻ ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİȓȢ), allowing for the alternative hypothesis that this is Mos-
chus’ independent development of a Homeric model. Of the remaining
parallels, the description of Zeus’ subjection to Aphrodite’s power at Eur.
76 appears to be a commonplace with no direct verbal connection to the
hAphr.; the vocabulary and sentiment in Eur. 78 are again insufficiently
exceptional to require that Moschus knew hAphr. 38; and Zeus’ promise at
Eur. 160–1 has not a single word in common with hAphr. 196–7 (itself
modeled on Il. 20.307–8 Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ ǹੁȞİȓĮȠ ȕȓȘ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ / țĮ੿
ʌĮȓįȦȞ ʌĮ૙įİȢ, ĲȠȓ țİȞ ȝİĲȩʌȚıșİ ȖȑȞȦȞĲĮȚ), while the gist of the verses is
closer to the conclusion of the story of Poseidon’s rape of Tyro at Od.
11.235–56. The best case for a specific verbal echo of the hAphr. in Mos-
chus is thus Eur. 1, and in particular the collocation of the name ȀȪʌȡȚȢ,
the prefix ਥʌȓ in ‘tmesis’, and the odd phrase ȖȜȣțઃȞ … ੕ȞİȚȡȠȞ (although
cf. the common early epic ȖȜȣțઃȢ ੢ʌȞȠȢ at e.g. Od. 10.548; hAphr. 171).
But even this is scarcely an open-and-shut case, and whether Moschus
knew the Hymn remains uncertain.
Among later Greek authors, Proclus (5th century CE) certainly refers
to hAphr. 6 ʌȐıȚȞ įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ ȝȑȝȘȜİȞ ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ at h. 2.13 ʌ઼ıȚȞ
įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ ȝȑȝȘȜİȞ ਥȡȦĲȠĲȩțȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ. Janko (following Kost) suggests
a series of less specific allusions in Musaeus’ Hero and Leander (5th/6th
century CE):48
Mus. 79 Į੝ĲȓțĮ ĲİșȞĮȓȘȞ ȜİȤȑȦȞ ਥʌȚȕȒȝİȞȠȢ ૽ǾȡȠ૨Ȣ (Leander is speaking)
~ hAphr. 153–4 ȕȠȣȜȠȓȝȘȞ … / ıોȢ İ੝ȞોȢ ਥʌȚȕ੹Ȣ į૨ȞĮȚ įȩȝȠȞ ૓ǹȚįȠȢ
İ੅ıȦ (Anchises is speaking)
Mus. 160 ʌĮȡșİȞȚț੽ įૅ ਙĳșȠȖȖȠȢ ਥʌ੿ ȤșȩȞĮ ʌોȟİȞ ੑʌȦʌȒȞ (of Hero, re-
sponding to Leander’s approach) ~ hAphr. 156 ਪȡʌİ
_____________
48 For Musaeus and the hAphr., see also Faulkner (2008) 52.
ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ, țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ (of Aphrodite, entering

Anchises’ house)
Mus. 264–5 țĮ੿ ȤȡȩĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ țȐșȘȡİ. įȑȝĮȢ įૅ ਩ȤȡȚıİȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ / İ੝ȩįȝȦȚ
૧ȠįȑȦȚ țĮ੿ ਖȜȓʌȞȠȠȞ ਩ıȕİıİȞ ੑįȝȒȞ (Hero cares for Leander, who has
swum across the Hellenspont for her) ~ hAphr. 61–3 ਩ȞșĮ įȑ ȝȚȞ
ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ ȜȠ૨ıĮȞ țĮ੿ Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ / ਕȝȕȡȩĲȦȚ, ȠੈĮ șİȠઃȢ ਥʌİȞȒȞȠșİȞ
Įੁ੻Ȟ ਥȩȞĲĮȢ, / ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȦȚ ਦįĮȞ૵Ț, Ĳȩ ૧Ȑ Ƞੂ ĲİșȣȦȝȑȞȠȞ ਷İȞ (of Aphro-
dite, being prepared in her temple in Paphos for her encounter with
Anchises)
Hero and Leander 264–5 describes a common form of personal grooming,
in language entirely different from hAphr. 61–3, and thus fails to support
the notion that Musaeus knew the Hymn. The modest downward glance at
Hero and Leander 160, on the other hand, finds a better parallel at Il. 3.217
țĮĲ੹ ȤșȠȞઁȢ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ ʌȒȟĮȢ (Helen’s description of Odysseus preparing to
speak to the Trojans). The argument thus comes down to Hero and Lean-
der 79 ~ hAphr. 153–4, in both of which ਥʌȚȕĮȓȞȦ is used of entering a
woman’s bed to have sex with her, while the sentiment expressed is other-
wise unique in the literary evidence preserved for us. But the verb is com-
mon in this sense in Homer (see n. ad loc.), so that the hAphr. need not be
invoked as Musaeus’ model on that count alone, while a hyperbolic ex-
pression of a willingness to die if necessary, in order to sleep with a desira-
ble woman, does not necessarily require a specific textual model.
A better case can be made for Q.S. 8.466–7 (4th century CE) įȐȝȞĮĲȠ įૅ
੒ʌʌȩıĮ ĳ૨ȜĮ ĳİȡȑıȕȚȠȢ ਩Ĳȡİĳİ ȖĮ૙Į / ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȢ ਩ĳİȡȕİȞ ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ ਱įૅ
੒ʌȩıૅ ੢įȦȡ ~ hAphr. 3–5 țĮȓ Ĳૅ ਥįĮȝȐııĮĲȠ ĳ૨ȜĮ … / … / ਱ȝ੻Ȟ ੖ıૅ
ਵʌİȚȡȠȢ ʌȠȜȜ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȢ (although note that in Quintus ĳ૨ȜĮ is
the subject rather than the object of įȐȝȞĮĲȠ), and Nonn. 11.296 (4th/5th
century CE) ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ / ~ hAphr. 18 țĮ੿ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ
ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ / (although cf. Il. 21.485 țĮĲૅ Ƞ੡ȡİĮ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ /, which might
be the model for both passages independently).49 Be all that as it may,
Faulkner p. 50 overstates the case by asserting that it ‘seems very probable
that Aphr. was widely known in the Hellenistic period and beyond’. Philo-
demus appears to have known at least some of the major Hymns (On Piety
2 col. 199.5142–7; col. 221.5809–10 Obbink), as did Diodorus Siculus
(1.15.7; 3.65.3; 4.2.4). That Philodemus himself brought (a complete col-
lection of?) the Hymns to Rome is a reasonable but unprovable hypothesis;
Vergil, at any rate, certainly knew the hAphr. in particular. 50 Perhaps most
_____________
49 Both cited by Faulkner (2008) 52.
50 Aeneas’ flattering address to the disguised Venus, hailing her as a goddess or
perhaps a nymph, and her demurring reply at Verg. Aen. 1.326–35, respond direct-
ly to hAphr. 92–110, just as the account of Venus’ escape to Paphos at Aen. 1.415–
28 Introduction
important, one copy of a set of 31 Hymns of various sorts survived into late
antiquity and became the common ancestor of all the manuscripts of the
poems available to us today (cf. below, Introduction 6).
4. Aphrodite and Sexuality
The main narrative line of the hAphr. is driven above all else by Zeus’ plan
to require Aphrodite to sleep with a human being in order to put an end to
her obnoxious boasting ‘that she involved male gods with women subject
to death, / who bore sons subject to death to the immortals, / and that she
also involved female goddesses with human beings subject to death’ (50–
2). The plan is realized (cf. 46–7 with 166–7), and near the end of the po-
em Aphrodite announces that she will no longer speak to the other gods as
she once did (247–53). What is less clear is why this matters. The proem
repeatedly uses timeless (‘hymnic’) aorists to describe Aphrodite’s ability
to control the sexual behavior of Zeus and the other Olympians (2, 36, 39),
and Aphrodite herself never renounces this power, nor is it clear that she
could do so even if she wished. On a minimalist reading, therefore, the
Hymn is an account of the resolution of a minor domestic dispute on
Mount Olympus: Aphrodite’s mockery of the other gods is put an end to,
and general divine concord is, one assumes, accordingly restored.51
Whatever the advantages of this reading, it deprives the events de-
scribed in the hAphr. of any real significance, while failing to make sense
of one of its most obvious rhetorical elements. As Peter Smith has argued
at length,52 the poem insists repeatedly and emphatically on the fundamen-
tal difference between mortals and immortals. What Aphrodite boasts of,
after all, is not that she involves the gods in sexual escapades generally, but
that she involves them in escapades with human beings, producing half-
divine but nonetheless mortal children (50–2; cf. 249–50). Whether Aph-
rodite is a virgin when the story begins is left unspecified and seemingly
does not matter; Zeus forces her not merely to have sex, but to have sex
_____________
17 echoes hAphr. 58–9 (where note the reference to incense, missing from the
Homeric model at Od. 8.362–3, but present in Vergil); see Olson (2011). Janko
(following Heyworth) argues for an ‘imitation’ of the hAphr. at Propertius
2.32.33–40, where the story of Aphrodite and Anchises is referenced, but there are
no obvious specific points of contact with the text of the Hymn. Connections are
also occasionally alleged between the hAphr. and the Hymn to Venus with which
Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura begins (1.1–43), although the specific contents and
organization of the two texts are very different; see esp. Flores (1979).
51 Thus Faulkner (2008) 10–18.
52 Smith (1981a).
4. Aphrodite and Sexuality 29
with ‘a man subject to death’ (46; cf. 255 ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ). The Hymn is
also set at a particular point in (allegedly) historical time, in the generation
just before the Trojan War, and indeed at the very moment when Aeneas,
one of the greatest heroes of that war, was conceived (255). Hesiod notes
that the last heroes died at Troy, many others having been killed at Thebes
before, and the obvious question is why more were not born afterward as a
result of further sexual liaisons between gods and human beings.
As van der Ben saw,53 therefore, and Clay has argued most articulate-
54
ly, the hAphr. is usefully conceived as offering an explanation of how
this change of epochs took place. Aeneas is the last hero, for the larger
point of the poem must be that Aphrodite’s experience with Anchises led
her to abandon not just her boasting, but the manipulation of the other
Olympians that led to and supported it. She never surrenders her power as
the proem describes it; she still ‘arouses sweet desire in gods’ (2), and
‘whenever she wishes,’ she remains able to ‘deceive (Zeus’) subtle mind /
and easily involve him with women subject to death’ (38–9). The crucial
point, however, must be that the sudden new risk of humiliation (247–8)
means that Aphrodite no longer wishes to do this; as a consequence, the
Age of Heroes will come to an end after the death of the next generation—
as in fact it did.55 But the relationship between Aphrodite and Zeus in the
Hymn, and thus the Hymn’s representation of the role sexual desire plays in
mortal (and immortal) life, calls out to be read in other ways as well.
The hAphr. begins and ends with what might easily be understood as a
series of contradictions and obscurities. Aphrodite controls every creature
in the universe, including the gods (1–6, 34–5), whom she forces to have
sex with human beings whenever the mood strikes her (esp. 50–2). Even
Zeus, who ‘is the greatest and receives the greatest share of honor’ (37), is
subject to Aphrodite’s power, for she routinely makes him forget Hera and
sleep with mortal women (36–41). There are nonetheless three significant
exceptions to the goddess’ allegedly complete authority (7–32), and the
narrative portion of the poem describes how Zeus compels Aphrodite to do
his will rather than the other way around (esp. 45–57). Indeed, Aphrodite’s
_____________
53 van der Ben (1986) 31–2.
54 Clay (1989) 192–3.
55 The same change is apparent on another level in the text in Aphrodite’s seemingly
very poorly motivated decision not to seek immortality for Anchises. In past gen-
erations, Ganymede was made ‘immortal and ageless, exactly like the gods’ (214),
and Tithonus too was awarded eternal life—although unfortunately not eternal
youth as well (220–4). Aphrodite’s insistence that this option is unavailable for
Anchises (244–6) thus seems at first glance nonsensical. But the true significance
of her announcement must be that the time is past when the boundary between
immortal gods and ‘human beings subject to death’ could be broached; everything
has now changed.
30 Introduction
power seems broken in the course of the story, for her misadventure with
Anchises leads her to renounce the use of a crucial portion of it (247–53
with nn.), and she ultimately invokes the authority of Zeus’ lightning-bolt
when she warns her mortal lover to remain silent about their relationship
(286–8). Nor are the difficulties with the conceptualization of Aphrodite’s
power in the Hymn confined to the divine sphere. Despite the universalist
ideology promoted in the proem, in the narrative portions of the poem
erotic desire appears to be experienced almost exclusively by men; the sole
exception is Aphrodite herself.
As noted above, one productive approach to some of these problems
would seem to be to interpret the story of Aphrodite and Anchises dia-
chronically. The goddess’ situation changes in the course of the Hymn, as
Zeus’ plan is accomplished and she loses the status that encouraged her to
exercise malicious sexual power over other Olympians; this change leads
to the end of the Age of Heroes and the beginning of our own, in which
gods and mortals no longer interact so closely. But from another perspec-
tive, the complexities of the Hymn’s intellectual structure can be read as
symptoms of its concern with how raw erotic desire of the sort experienced
not just by human beings, but by gods, beasts, birds, and fish as well, is
experienced, expressed, and managed in the ‘civilized’ social realm of the
household and the city. The latter is the world of Zeus and also of the poet,
and its point of view is privileged throughout the Hymn, most obviously in
the ‘historical’ direction in which the narrative moves on a superficial lev-
el. Within this world, men are subject to erôs in a way that women seem-
ingly are not; indeed, were it not for the poet’s occasional remarks about
Aphrodite’s feelings (esp. 45–6, 56–7), we would scarcely know that
women experience desire at all. But the power of Aphrodite is (and re-
mains) just as real and substantial as that of Zeus; and the poet’s emphatic
initial invocation of it, his description of the goddess’ experience of long-
ing for Anchises, circumscribed and truncated though it is, and the ambig-
uous and unemphatic form of her final surrender, combine to give the lie to
the notion that Zeus and all he represents really triumph ‘in the end’. The
apparent process of historical development in the hAphr. can thus also—
and perhaps better—be described as a juxtaposition of ideological struc-
tures, neither of which the poet is able or (to his credit) willing to abandon.
Zeus and the structures of power, decorum, and authority he stands for and
guarantees prevail ‘today’. But so does Aphrodite, even if she ought not to,
for the world in which we find ourselves contains not just the city but the
mountain as well, and desire is not in practice an exclusively male pre-
serve.
At 45–55 (esp. 45–6, 53–5), the poet describes what appears to be the
primary intended subject of his Hymn: how Zeus inspired Aphrodite with
erotic desire for Anchises in support of a larger plan to put a stop to her
nasty boasting about her ability to manipulate the other gods sexually.
Anchises is described in 55 as įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȠȚțȫȢ (‘built like an
immortal’), and the moment Aphrodite catches sight of him, she falls in
love (56–7). So too, when Aphrodite first spies Anchises in the cowyard,
the poet—now patently using the goddess as his focalizer—describes him
as șİ૵Ȟ ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȞĲĮ (‘handsome as a god’, 77); and Aphrodite her-
self refers obliquely to Anchises’ good looks at 241 (and cf. 183 with n.).
The descriptions of the goddess’ experience of sexual desire are nonethe-
less strikingly flat and uninformative, and the extent to which the narrative
in the hAphr. privileges male erôs is apparent from the contrast with what
we are told of Anchises.
When Anchises first catches sight Aphrodite, the poet tells us, he is
overwhelmed by her loveliness, including the stunning clothing she wears
(84–5). But rather than leaving it at that, the narrator goes on to offer a
detailed account of the goddess’ robes and jewelry, as well as (allusively)
of the divine body they conceal (84–5). So too when the two characters
finally go to bed, the poet offers a sexually highly charged, step-by-step
account of how Anchises undresses Aphrodite (162–5), but makes no men-
tion at all of Anchises stripping. Nor does this portion of the narrative
come to a conclusion with the observation that Aphrodite slept with a mortal
creature—as the account of Zeus’ plan at 45–55 might have led one to ex-
pect—or even that Aphrodite and Anchises slept together. Instead, we are told
that Anchises, although a mortal, slept with an immortal goddess (166–7).
This pointed contrast between men’s and women’s experience of erôs
is again apparent in the conversation between Aphrodite (now playing the
part of a kidnapped Phrygian princess) and Anchises at 107–54. Aphrodite
claims to have been brought to Mount Ida to be Anchises’ wife (126–7),
and she insists that she has no choice but to do whatever is required of her
(esp. 130 țȡĮĲİȡ੽ įȑ ȝȠȚ ਩ʌȜİĲૅ ਕȞȐȖțȘ ‘but harsh necessity is upon me’).
But she never expresses any desire for her future husband, aside from an
exceedingly oblique reference to his good looks at 132; and she proposes
putting off their wedding until the appropriate social niceties can be taken
care of (133–42). So too when the two of them enter the hut to have sex,
Aphrodite turns her eyes to the ground in a conventional gesture of modes-
ty (155–6 with n.), as if unwilling to openly acknowledge her consent to
Anchises’ desire to have her (cf. 145–54). Anchises, on the other hand, is
repeatedly said by the narrator to have been seized by erotic longing for his
visitor (143–4, cf. 91), and he outspokenly declares his desire to sleep with
her immediately, regardless of what anyone else may think (esp. 149–51).
The description of the encounter between Aphrodite and Anchises in
the hAphr. thus pays disproportionate attention to the male experience of
32 Introduction
sexual desire, while downplaying the female experience. Put another way,
despite the proem’s insistence that lust is a universal phenomenon, the
narrative portions of the poem deny that women experience erôs in the way
that men do, or even—with the notable exception of Aphrodite herself—
that they experience erôs at all. Thus also at 21–32, the poet never specifies
why Apollo and Poseidon ask to marry Hestia (24), but the scene is most
easily read as a typical one, in which a female figure is introduced into the
company of the gods and overwhelms them with her beauty (cf. h. 6.15–18
with nn.). Hestia herself, however, is patently untouched by erôs, since she
stubbornly insists on remaining a virgin (25–8). Even the story of Dawn
and Tithonus refers only obliquely to the goddess’ longing for her mortal
lover,56 by describing him as ਥʌȚİȓțİȜȠȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ (‘resembling the
immortals’, 219);57 instead, it is Tithonus who ‘enjoys gold-throned, early-
born Dawn’ (226). Nor is this privileging of the male perspective restricted
to the poet’s presentation of his characters, as is apparent from 61–5, where
the external audience (but not Anchises) is offered an extended, voyeuristic
glimpse inside Aphrodite’s chambers in her temple on Cyprus, where the
Graces wash, dress, and adorn her before she sets off on her mission to
seduce the Trojan hero.58
This contrast between the proem’s ideology of mandatory universal
participation in sexuality under Aphrodite’s aegis, on the one hand, and an
emphatically gendered experience of erôs in the human world controlled
by Zeus, on the other, has a social (or spatial) dimension as well. The pro-
em sets Aphrodite’s power emphatically in what we would call the natural
world: she subdues not just men and gods, but ‘the birds that swoop
through the sky and all the wild beasts, / however many the mainland nour-
ishes or the sea’ (4–5). So too, when Aphrodite travels from Cyprus to
Troy, she lands not directly in front of Anchises’ hut, but somewhere on
the mountain’s slopes (68). This is inter alia a neat narrative device, which
allows the goddess’ powers to be put on display before she comes face-to-
face with the object of her quest. But the wolves, lions, bears, and wildcats
that trail behind her, and which she inspires with lust and sends off to their
hiding-places to have sex (69–74), are also evocative of the description of
the sphere in which Aphrodite is said to exercise her power in the poem’s
opening verses.
The narrative portions of the hAphr., by contrast, are by and large set
in an explicitly political world, where issues of status and decorum are to
_____________
56 Indeed, she is explicitly said only to stay away from his bed (230).
57 Although note also 220–1 n. (on the motivation for Dawn’s visit to Zeus to seek
eternal life for her lover), 225 with n., 229 with n.
58 Cf. the leering description of ‘soft-skinned young girls in their houses’ in 14.
the fore. Thus Anchises in his initial prayer to his still anonymous visitor
asks to become a distinguished man among the Trojans, something he as-
sociates closely with having children (103–6 with nn.). So too the dispute
between Apollo and Poseidon over Hestia is public, in that it rapidly comes
to be set in Zeus’ house and the presence of the other Olympians (cf. 27–30
with nn.): the question is not just whether Hestia will marry, but which of
her two rival suitors (24) will be allowed to have her. In all these contexts,
men exercise political and social authority (cf. 20 įȚțĮȓȦȞ Ĳİ ʌĲȩȜȚȢ
ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ with n., 111–12 with n.), while women are largely domestic crea-
tures (cf. 114–15 with n.), who display modesty (esp. 156 with n.) and are
shown ‘respect’ (e.g. 21 with n., 44). This is the world of Zeus, who af-
firms Hestia’s decision to remain a virgin (29–32) and indeed makes her
‘the most respected of the gods in the eyes of all mortals’ (32) as a conse-
quence of it.59
Near the end of the Hymn, Aphrodite tells Anchises that when Aeneas
is eventually handed over to him by the mountain nymphs, he is to take the
boy to Troy (280); the implication is that, as a consequence of having him,
Anchises will at last become a great man, exactly as he wished (cf. 103–6).
The central event between the goddess’ passage along Mount Ida’s flanks
and Anchises’ departure for the city is their encounter in the hero’s bed,
which is covered with the skins of bears and lions he has killed (158–60).
These are not, of course, the same creatures as those that follow the god-
dess as she approaches Anchises’ hut (69–74). But the point is clear
enough: for the poet in his historicist mode, this is the moment when Aph-
rodite’s power is decisively broken—or ‘tamed’ (cf. 82 ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ
with n.)—by the plan of Zeus (cf. 247–58). But it would be just as appro-
priate to identify this as the point where the poem’s two opposed ideolo-
gies of sexuality come face-to-face, and it cannot be said that Anchises
emerges from the confrontation the obvious winner (cf. 181–90).
In the decorous and controlled ‘political’ world of Zeus, female char-
acters generally appear not to be subject to erôs, which strikes only men.
But Aphrodite herself is explicitly said to feel erotic desire for Anchises
(56–7), even if the Hymn-poet declines to systematically adopt her focali-
zation to describe the content of her experience. The inevitable implication
is that other women feel desire as well, although the dominant social order
requires that they conceal the fact. In Hesiod, sexuality is a fundamentally
dangerous and destructive force, which one way or another ruins the lives
of men (esp. Th. 594–613). The hAphr. offers a less judgmental if still
coercively structured view of the situation. In one (‘historicist’) sense,
_____________
59 Cf. the pointed initial reference to him as the father of the virgin goddess Athena
(another of the three exceptions to Aphrodite’s supposedly universal power) at 8.
34 Introduction
Zeus is ultimately triumphant over Aphrodite, and the poet leaves no doubt
that he himself is in sympathy with the ‘post-heroic’ order thus created,
and that he expects his audience to be as well. But Aphrodite’s universal
power nonetheless endures, despite the poet’s patent desire to tame or
transform it by subjecting it—and her—to Zeus and what he represents;
and it is a mark of the richness and subtlety of the story he has told that this
is so.
5. The Metrics of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite
Metrical practices in dactylic hexameter poetry appear to correlate broadly

with date, genre, ‘school’ affiliation, and the like. But in the Archaic period
in particular, such practices are best understood as tendencies rather than as
evidence of an individual poet’s concerted, conscious effort to maintain or
reject widely recognized metrical ‘laws’ or norms. The larger the sample
size—i.e. the longer the poem—the more compelling analyses of such
tendencies will be. The remarks that follow are accordingly restricted to
the hAphr., which, at 290 lines, is among the shortest of the so-called ‘ma-
jor Hymns’60 but is far longer than any of the so-called ‘minor Hymns’
treated in this edition. The evidence is consistent with an Archaic date for
the hAphr., although I have argued above, in Introduction 2, that the poem
must also be later than the Iliad and the Odyssey, and perhaps later than
Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days as well. As for the ‘minor
Hymns’, I suggest in the commentary itself that the preponderance of mas-
culine over feminine caesura in h. 6, 27, and 28 likely puts those poems
(two of which are closely associated for other reasons) in the 5th century
BCE. In addition, I suggest that h. 6 and 10 respond to and must therefore
be later than the Theogony; that h. 27 responds to and must therefore be
later than both the hAp.Delos and the hAp.Delphi; and that topographical
considerations make it clear that h. 9 is Hellenistic in date.
1. Prosody
In the hAphr., combination of stop plus liquid generally renders a preced-

ing syllable that contains a short vowel heavy by position; exceptions all
involve rho at word beginning (114 ȝİ ĲȡȠĳȩȢ, 179 Ĳઁ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ, 184
ʌĲİȡȩİȞĲĮ ʌȡȠıȘȪįĮ, 291 ਵȚȟİ ʌȡȩȢ), with the exception of the divine
name ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ, the first syllable of which is routinely treated as light (e.g.
_____________
60 Only the hAp.Delos, at 178 lines, is shorter.
5. The Metrics of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 35
1, 9), as in early epic generally. There are no examples of ‘internal correp-

tion’, i.e. the treatment of the diphthongs ȠȚ or ĮȚ as light when they are
followed by a vowel within a word (e.g. 49 ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ, 101 ʌȠȚȒıȦ, 241
ĲȠȚȠ૨ĲȠȢ).
2. Dactyls and Spondees
Of the 32 possible dactylic hexameter verse types, the hAphr. uses 26 (a

figure closely in line with the other major Hymns), in the following propor-
tions.61
Table I: Line-structure in the hAphr. (d = dactyl, s = spondee)

sdddd 47 16.2% dddss 4 1.4%
dsddd 43 14.8% ddssd 4 1.4%
ddddd 41 14.1% dsdds 4 1.4%
ssddd 23 7.9% sddds 4 1.4%
sddsd 19 6.6% dsssd 3 1.0%
dddsd 17 5.9% sdsds 3 1.0%
dssdd 13 4.5% ddsss 2 0.7%
dsdsd 11 3.8% dssds 2 0.7%
ddsdd 10 3.4% sdssd 2 0.7%
sdsdd 10 3.4% ssdds 2 0.7%
ssdsd 9 3.1% dsdss 1 0.4%
sssdd 8 2.8% ssdss 1 0.4%
dddds 5 1.7%
The five most common verse forms = 59.6% of all lines in the poem, very
close to the figures for the hAp.Delphi and the hDem. (57.5% and 58.6%,
respectively). The hAphr. is generally more spondaic than the Homeric
poems, except in the fourth foot, and in this regard it is closer to the other
Hymns and, to a lesser extent, to Hesiod.
Table II: Dactyls and spondees in the hAphr., by foot

I II III IV V
dactyls 160 55.2% 168 58% 221 76.2% 216 74.5% 260 89.7%
spondees 130 44.8% 122 42% 59 23.8% 74 25.5% 30 10.3%
_____________
61 For the external metrics of the other major Hymns, see the appendix to this chapter.
36 Introduction
Table III: % of spondees in the hAphr. and other hexameter poetry, by foot62
I II III IV V
hAphr. 44.8 42.0 23.8 25.5 10.3
Other archaic poetry

Iliad 39.1 39.8 14.9 29.0 5.1
Odyssey 37.9 42.4 16.2 30.2 4.7
Theogony 40.9 40.5 14.0 26.9 6.5
Opera 39.1 48.1 22.2 29.8 6.8
hAp.Delos 42.1 46.0 24.7 29.8 11.2
hAp.Delphi 36.0 45.0 21.8 26.7 12.0
hDem. 31.4 37.2 16.6 28.9 12.7
hHerm. 34.3 33.3 13.4 23.4 6.0
Aspis 35.9 38.8 19.2 30.0 10.0
4th Century and later

Archestratus 44.0 39.0 43.0 50.0 <1.0
Alex.Aet. 51.3 54.0 21.6 21.6 0
Aratus 37.9 41.0 20.4 19.2 14.3
A.R. 30.2 43.4 15.5 17.3 8.7
Theocritus63 40.5 41.5 8.5 27.1 6.1
Callimachus64 46.7 52.6 19.7 12.4 1.3
The hAphr. contains 30 (= 9.6%) spondeiazontes, i.e. lines with a contract-

ed fifth foot, a figure similar to those for the hAp.Delos (11.2%),
hAp.Delphi (9.8%), and hDem. (12.7%).65 7 of these lines (3, 35, 52, 122,
149, 200, 281) also feature a resolved fourth foot. Of the spondeiazontes,
11 end with a trisyllabic word; 1 ends with a trisyllabic word followed by
Ĳİ; and 16 end with a tetrasyllabic word.
3. Caesurae
Every line in the hAphr. has a main caesura in either the third or the fourth
foot. Hepthemimeral (i.e. fourth-foot) caesura occurs only twice = .7%, in
_____________
62 Figures for the Iliad, the Odyssey, and all Hellenistic poets are drawn from Mag-
nelli (2002) 61. Figures for the Theogony, the Works and Days, and the pseudo-
Hesiodic Aspis are drawn from West (1966a) 93. Figures for the hAp.Delos,
hAp.Delphi, hDem. and hHerm. represent my own calculations. Figures for Ar-
chestratus are drawn from Olson–Sens (2000) lxiii.
63 Epic poetry only.
64 Hymns 1–4, 6 only.
65 The metrically conservative hHerm. is again an outlier, at 5.5% spondeiazontes.
5. The Metrics of the Homeric Hymn To Aphrodite 37
line with the figures for the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Hesiodic poems
(1.4%, 0.9%, and 2.2%, respectively)66 and very close to that for the
hAp.Delos (0.6%) and the hDem. (0.8%). In lines with third-foot caesura,
the feminine caesura (172 = 59.3%) is more common than the masculine
caesura (116 = 40.0%) by a ratio of 3 : 2, again nearly matching the figures
for the hAp.Delos (40.5% masculine caesura) and the hAp.Delphi (42.8%),
but diverging from the ratio of about 4 : 3 in the Homeric poems and the
hDem. (38.2%);67 the difference is directly connected to the Hymn’s pro-
nounced tendency toward spondaic third feet. The main caesura depends 3
times on elision (129, 163, 189). Bucolic caesura (word-ending after un-
contracted fourth-foot biceps) occurs in 51.7% of lines (150/290), close to
the figures for the hAp.Delphi (52.9%) and hHerm. (51.2%), and somewhat
above the figures for Homer (47%) and the hDem. (48.0%).68 Bucolic cae-
sura is coincident with sense pause 19 times (= 12.7% of examples; see
below) and is dependent on elision 4 times (103, 144, 176, 234).
4. Word Break in other Positions
There are no violations of Hermann’s bridge (which prohibits word-

division within the fourth biceps). Wernicke’s law (that when there is word
division after a contracted biceps in the fourth foot, the word almost never
ends in an open short vowel made long by position)69 is respected; the
second foot consistently behaves in a similar fashion. As is regular in early
epic verse, molossi (words having the shape — — —) either end with the
princeps or fall at verse end.70 In general, however, the hAphr. displays
little of the metrical refinement typical of Hellenistic poets such as Callim-
achus and Nicander:
• Meyer’s first law (that a word that begins in the first foot does not
end directly after the first short in a resolved second-foot biceps)
and Giseke’s law (that a word that begins in the first foot does not
_____________
66 Figures drawn from West (1982) 36.
67 West (1982) 36. The preference for the feminine caesura is even more pronounced
in the hHerm. (24.8% masculine caesura) and the Hellenistic poets (West (1982)
153). In fifth-century hexameters and in Archestratus, by contrast, the masculine
caesura dominates; see West (1982) 98, 153; Olson–Sens (2000) lxiv.
68 Of the major Hymns, the hAp.Delos is the odd man out, with bucolic caesura in
42.1% of lines. All these figures are well below those for most Hellenistic poets;
see West (1982) 154.
69 West (1982) 37.
70 E.g. hAphr. 13, 21, 35; see West (1982) 36–7.
38 Introduction
end at the end of the second foot) are ignored 14 times (= 5.5% of
lines) and 5 times (= 1.7% of lines), respectively.71
• A single word occupies the second foot 11 times (= 3.8% of
lines);72 in 4 of these cases (= 1.4% of lines) the foot is spondaic.
• Meyer’s second law (that words of the shape ȣ — are avoided be-
fore caesura) is ignored 9 times (= 3.1% of lines).73
• Naeke’s law (that word end following contracted fourth biceps is
avoided) is ignored 9 times (= 3.1% of lines).74
• The rule that lines with masculine caesura also require caesura af-
ter the fourth princeps, fourth biceps or both (sometimes referred
to as Meyer’s third law) is ignored 11 times (= 3.8% of lines).75
• Tiedke’s law (that the combination of word break after fourth-foot
and fifth-foot principes is avoided) is violated 17 times (= 5.9% of
lines).
5. Correption and Hiatus
‘Epic correption’ (the treatment of a final long vowel or diphthong as light

before a word beginning with a vowel) occurs in the hAphr. almost four
times as often between two feet as between the first and second syllables of
a foot (46 times vs. 12 times). Both between and within feet, correption is
most common in the first (17 times and 4 times, respectively) and third (18
times and 6 times, respectively) feet, and relatively rare in the second (1
time and 1 time, respectively) and fifth (3 times and 2 times, respectively)
feet. It occurs seven times at the end of the fourth foot, but observance of
Hermann’s bridge obviates correption within that foot.
Hiatus generally reflects respect for digamma (21, 30, 48, 63, 116, 153,
185, 225) or is mitigated by caesura (93, 173, 255), or can explained as a
product of the history of epic diction (1, 9; cf. 93) or by reference to an
Homeric exemplar (100; cf. 209). Three cases (135, 225, 230), two of them
_____________
71 These figures take account of following enclitics, as at e.g. hAphr. 4 / ȠੁȦȞȠȪȢ Ĳİ
įȚİȚʌİĲȑĮȢ țĲȜ. (violating Meyer’s first law), 275 / ਙȟȠȣıȓȞ ĲȠȚ įİ૨ȡȠ țĲȜ. (violat-
ing Giseke’s law) If such combinations are disregarded, Meyer’s first law and
Giseke’s law are ignored nine times and three times, respectively.
72 The figure rises to 14 (= 4.8% of lines) if the combinations ȝȑȞ Ƞੂ, ੪Ȣ șİȩȢ, and
ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ (hAphr. 162, 186 and 193, respectively) are taken into account.
73 The figure rises to ten if hAphr. 59 ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞā ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȫįȘȢ
is treated as a violation.
74 Vs. 5.83% in the Homeric lines analyzed by Fantuzzi–Sens (2006) 119.
75 Vs. 3.16% in the Homeric lines analyzed by Fantuzzi– Sens (2006) 119.
otherwise problematic, involve ĲȠȚ or ਵĲȠȚ and apparently represent the

individual dictional practice of the hAphr.-poet.
6. Elision and Crasis
Ǽlision in the hAphr. is restricted to short vowels:

• -Į (e.g. 5 ੖ıૅ, 11 ਩ȡȖૅ, 25 ȝȐȜૅ, 30 țĮĲૅ), including both masculine
and feminine participles (66 ʌȡȠȜȚʌȠ૨ıૅ, 188 ȗ૵ȞĲૅ, 291 İੁʌȠ૨ıૅ)
• -İ (e.g. 3 Ĳૅ, 5 įૅ, 16 ʌȠĲૅ, 73 ȕȐȜૅ)
• -Ț (e.g. 34 ਩ıĲૅ, 88 ਕȝĳૅ, 216 Ƞ੝țȑĲૅ, 267 ਦıĲ઼ıૅ)
• -Ƞ (e.g. 57 ਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ, 66 ıİȪĮĲૅ, 80 ʌȦȜİ૙Ĳૅ, 130 ਩ʌȜİĲૅ)
Crasis appears in the manuscripts only in lines 56 and 209 / ĲઁȞ įਵʌİȚĲĮ,
where I print instead / ĲઁȞ į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ.
7. Sense Pause
Sense pause in the hAphr. occurs within a line 97 times (= 33.4%), general-
ly:
(1) after the first short in a resolved first-foot biceps (4 times = 4.2%
of examples), or between the first and second foot (17 times =
17.5% of examples), or after the second-foot princeps (11 times =
11.3% of examples). In 16 of these cases (= 16.5% of examples),
enjambment is involved.
(2) at masculine (20 times = 20.6% of examples) or feminine (24 times
= 24.8% of examples) third-foot caesura (total 44 times = 45.4% of
examples).
(3) at bucolic caesura (19 times = 19.6% of examples and 12.7% of
lines with bucolic caesura).
The only exceptions are lines 212 (after fourth-foot princeps) and 271 (af-
ter fourth-foot princeps in a line with fourth-foot caesura).
40 Introduction
APPENDIX: External metrics in the other ‘major Hymns’
hAp.Delos
Line-structure (d = dactyl, s = spondee):
dsddd 24 13.5% dsssd 3 1.7%
ddddd 23 12.9% sdsdd 3 1.7%
sdddd 19 10.7% sdssd 3 1.7%
dddsd 13 7.3% ssssd 3 1.7%
ssddd 13 7.3% dddss 2 1.1%
ddsdd 11 6.2% dsdds 2 1.1%
dssdd 11 6.2% dssds 2 1.1%
sddsd 11 6.2% ssdds 2 1.1%
dsdsd 8 4.5% ddssd 1 0.6%
ssdsd 7 3.9% dsdss 1 0.6%
sddds 6 3.4% sdsds 1 0.6%
sssdd 5 2.8% sssss 1 0.6%
dddds 3 1.7%
25 of 32 possible forms; five most common forms = 51.7% of lines
Masculine caesura 40.5%
Fourth-foot caesura 0.6%
Bucolic caesura 42.1%
Spondeiazontes 11.2%
hAp.Delphi
ddddd 62 16.9% sssdd 8 2.2%
dsddd 53 14.4% ssdds 6 1.6%
sdddd 46 12.5% dsdds 5 1.4%
dsdsd 27 7.4% dsssd 5 1.4%
dssdd 24 6.5% sddds 4 1.0%
ssddd 22 6.0% sddss 2 0.5%
dddsd 20 5.4% dsdss 2 0.5%
sddsd 17 4.6% sdsds 2 0.5%
ddsdd 15 4.1% sdsss 2 0.5%
dddds 11 3.0% ssssd 2 0.5%
ddssd 10 2.7% ddsds 1 0.3%
ssdsd 10 2.7% sdssd 1 0.3%
sdsdd 9 2.5% sssds 1 0.3%
Spondeiazontes 9.8%
hDemeter
ddddd 97 20.6% sssdd 7 1.5%
dsddd 63 13.4% sddss 4 0.8%
dddsd 44 9.3% dddss 4 0.8%
sdddd 40 8.5% ddsss 4 0.8%
dsdsd 32 6.8% ddssd 4 0.8%
ssddd 31 6.6% ddsds 4 0.8%
ddsdd 27 5.7% sdsds 3 0.6%
sddsd 26 5.5% dssds 2 0.4%
dddds 17 3.6% sdsss 1 0.2%
dssdd 14 3.0% sdssd 1 0.2%
ssdsd 14 3.0% ssdds 1 0.2%
sddds 10 2.1% dsssd 1 0.2%
sdsdd 10 2.1% dsdss 1 0.2%
dsdds 9 1.9%
Spondeiazontes 12.7%
hHermes
ddddd 153 24.4% sdssd 5 0.8%
sdddd 93 16.0% dsdds 5 0.8%
dsddd 88 15.2% dsssd 4 0.6%
dddsd 42 7.2% dddss 4 0.6%
ssddd 33 5.7% sddds 3 0.5%
sddsd 33 5.7% sddss 3 0.5%
ddsdd 25 4.3% dssds 3 0.5%
dsdsd 25 4.3% ddsss 3 0.5%
dssdd 13 2.2% ssdds 2 0.3%
dddds 9 1.6% dssss 1 0.2%
sssdd 9 1.6% sdsds 1 0.2%
ssdsd 8 1.4% ssdss 1 0.2%
sdsdd 7 1.2% ssssd 1 0.2%
ddssd 6 1.0%
42 Introduction

Spondeiazontes 5.5%
6. Textual Transmission
1. Manuscripts
The hAphr. is preserved in at least 22 manuscripts, nine of which are gen-

erally eliminated as copies of others, although (as noted near the end of the
discussion below) the situation in regard to Vaticanus Palatinus 179 and
the various manuscripts related to it is more complicated than that. The 13
remaining manuscripts, all taken into account in the apparatus of this edi-
tion, are:
ǹ = Parisinus Graecus 2763 (paper; 15th c.)
At = Athous Vatopedi 671 (vellum; late 14th/early 15th c.)
Ǻ = Parisinus Graecus 2765 (paper and vellum; 15th c.)
ī = Bruxellensis 11377–11380 (paper; late 15th/early 16th c.)
D = Ambrosianus 120 (B 98 sup.) (vellum; 1420–1428)
E = Mutinensis Estensis 164 (Į W 5.16) (paper; 1491–1492)
L = Laurentianus XXXII 45 (vellum; 15th c.)
M = Leidensis B.P.G. 33 H (paper; early 15th c.)
P = Vaticanus Palatinus 179 (vellum; first half of 15th c.)
Ȇ = Parisinus Graecus suppl. 1095 (paper; late 15th c.)
Q = Ambrosianus 734 (S 31 sup.) (paper; 15th c.)
T = Matritensis 4562 (paper; 1464)
V = Venetus Marcianus 456 (vellum; 15th c.)
The same 13 manuscripts preserve the other nine Hymns treated here, ex-
cept that (1) L breaks off after h. 7.33, and thus omits h. 9–12, 24, 27–9;
and (2) M breaks off after h. 18.4, and thus omits h. 24, 27–9.
That all known manuscripts of the Hymns are descendants of a single
exemplar (hereafter ȍ) is apparent from the fact that they agree in demon-
strable error at a number of points, e.g.:
5.13 ‫ۦ‬Ĳİۧ add. Barnes (metri causa) : om. ȍ
5.49 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ Estienne : ĳȚȜȠȝİȚį੽Ȣ ȍ
5.139 ‫ۦ‬ĲȠȚۧ add Matthiae (metri causa) : om. ȍ
6. Textual Transmission 43
5.147 į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ Hermann : įૅ ਪțȘĲȚ vel įૅ ਪțĮĲȚ ȍ

5.252 ıĲȩȝĮ ȤİȓıİĲĮȚ Martin : ıĲȠȞĮȤȒıİĲĮȚ ȍ
5.254 ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȩȞ Martin : ੑȞȩĲĮĲȠȞ ȍ
5.280 ȝȚȞ Hermann : ȞȚȞ Ȍ : Ȟ૨Ȟ M
5.284 ĳĮıȚȞ Humbert : ĳĮıȚ ȍ
5.290 ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ Hermann : ੑȞȩȝȘȞİ ȍ
12.2 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ Matthiae : ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȞ ȍ
All manuscripts also include the doublet 5.276–7, 278–9, one of which
pairs of verses must be expelled from the text.76 That ȍ’s descendants (or
the majority of its descendants) occasionally agree in error on accentuation
and word division77 may suggest that it was a minuscule manuscript. Fur-
ther errors within the Ȍ-family in particular (see below) are accordingly
probably not to be explained as the product of misread uncials.
M omits 5.68–112 (45 lines in total), which presumably represents a
missing folio in its exemplar.78 More significantly for stemmatic purposes,
M is frequently in error where the other manuscripts (referred to collective-
ly hereafter as Ȍ) agree on what appears to be the correct reading, and vice
versa:
M in error where the correct reading is preserved in Ȍ at e.g.:
5.8 Ĳૅ Ȍ : Ȗૅ M
5.18 ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ Ȍ : ਕȞĮȓȡİȚȞ M
5.25 ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ Ȍ : ıĲİȡ૵Ȣ M
5.28 ਩ııİıșĮȚ Ȍ : ਩ıİıșĮȚ M
5.30 ʌ૙Įȡ Ȍ : ʌİ૙Įȡ M
5.31 ʌ઼ıȚȞ Ȍ : ʌ઼ıȚ M
5.37 Ĳૅ1 om. M
5.42 ĲȑțİĲȠ Ȍ : Ĳȑțİ M
5.47 ȕȡȠĲȑȘȢ Ȍ : ȕȡȠĲȑĮȢ M
ਕʌȠİȡȖȝȑȞȘ Ȍ : ਕʌȠİȚȡȖȝȑȞȘ M
_____________
76 So too presumably in the case of the doublet 5.97, 98, although the fact that M
lacks 5.68–112 makes it impossible to prove that both verses stood in ȍ and not in
Ȍ alone.
77 E.g. 5.152 ʌȡȠ૘ોȚ Gemoll : ʌȡȠ૘Ș MĬ: ʌȡȠȓȠȚ p, 195 ਥʌİ੿ ਷ Allen : ਥʌİȚ੽ ȍ, 200
ਕȖȤȓșİȠȚ Barnes : ਙȖȤȚ șİȠȓ ȍ, 230 įૅ ਵĲȠȚ Hermann: įȒ ĲȠȚ ȍ. Cf. 5.174 n.
(miniscule confusion in ȍ’s descendants, although the fact that M gets the letter
right means that the problem may not have been in ȍ itself).
78 The omission comes in the middle of a page and does not represent damage to M
itself (which has in any case 26 lines per page, and thus 52 lines per folio). That
the number of missing lines is odd is difficult to explain, unless the intrusive 5.98
was missing from M’s version of the text (see n. ad loc.), in which case the exem-
plar will have had 22 lines per page, and thus 44 lines per folio.
44 Introduction
5.49 ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ Ȍ : ȖİȜȐıĮıĮ M

5.52 Ĳİ Ȍ : į੻ M
5.54 ੕ȡİıȚȞ Ȍ : ੕ȡİıȚ M
5.57 ਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ Ȍ : ਱ȡȐıĮĲȠ M
5.66 ȀȪʌȡȠȞ Ȍ : țોʌȠȞ M
5.117 ȝૅ om. M
5.118 țİȜĮįİȓȞȘȢ Ȍ : țİȜĮįȪȞȘȢ M
5.120 ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ Ȍ : ਕʌİȓȡȘĲȠȢ M
5.136 ȞȣઁȢ Ĭ (om. p) : ȞȘઁȢ M
5.137 ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ Ȍ : ĮੁȠȜȠʌȩȜȠȣȢ M
5.148 ૽ǼȡȝȑȦ Ȍ : ૽ǼȡȝĮȓȦ M
5.156 ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ om. M
5.157 ȜȑȤȠȢ Ȍ : ȜȑȤȠȞ M
ਙȞĮțĲȚ Ȍ : Į੝ĲȒ M
5.158 ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚ vel ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚȞ Ȍ : įȓȞȘȚıȚ M
5.159 ਙȡțĲȦȞ Ȍ : ਥț Ĳ૵Ȟ M
5.164 ੁį੻ Ȍ : ਱įૅ M
5.178 ਥȖઅȞ Ȍ : ਙȖȦȞ M
5.179 Ƞ੆ȘȞ Ȍ : Ƞ੅țȠȚ M
5.181 į੻ ੅įİȞ Ȍ : įૅ İੇįİ M
5.182 ĲȐȡȕȘıȑȞ Ȍ : ĲȐȡȕȘıȑ M
5.190 ȖȓȖȞİĲĮȚ Ȍ : ȖȓȞİĲĮȚ M
5.201 ਕĳૅ Ȍ : ਕȝĳૅ M
5.206 ਕĳȪııȦȞ Ȍ : ਕĳȪııİȚȞ M
5.225 ਩ȤİȞ Ȍ : ਩Ȥİ M
5.228 țĮĲȑȤȣȞĲȠ Ȍ : țĮĲȑȤȠȚȞĲȠ M
5.241 ĲȠȚȠ૨ĲȠȢ Ȍ : ĲȠ૙ȠȢ M
5.250 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ Ȍ : țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ M
5.255 ȗȫȞȘȚ Ȍ : ȗȫȞȘȞ M
5.256 ਥʌ੽Ȟ Ȍ : ਥʌİ੿Ȟ M
5.257 ੑȡİıț૵ȚȠȚ Ȍ : ੑȡİıțȩȠȚ M
5.258 Ĳİ1 om. M
5.263 ıʌİȓȦȞ Ȍ : ıʌȑȦȞ M
5.283 ıઃ Ȍ : ıȠȚ M
6.12 ੒ʌʌȩĲૅ ੅ȠȚİȞ Ȍ : ੒ʌʌȩĲȚ ਷İȞ M
6.15 ੁįȩȞĲİȢ Ȍ : ੁįȑıșĮȚ M
11.3 Į੝ĲȒ Ȍ : Į੝ĲȠȓ M
12.11 ਾȡȘȞ Ȍ : ਾȡĮȞ M
Ȍ in error where the correct reading is preserved in M at e.g.:
5.8 ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ M : ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚįૅ Ȍ
5.10 ਚįȠȞ M : ਚįİȞ Ȍ
5.38 İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ M : İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȠȚ vel İ੣Ĳİ șȑȜȠȚ Ȍ

5.66 ȉȡȠȓȘȢ M : ȉȡȠȓȘȞ Ȍ
5.67 ૧ȓȝĳĮ M : șȠ૵Ȣ Ȍ
5.114 ȉȡȦȚ੹Ȣ Ȃ : ȉȡȦઁȢ Ȍ
5.125 ȥĮȪıİȚȞ M : ȥĮȪİȚȞ Ȍ
5.132 Ƞ੝ ȝ੻Ȟ ȖȐȡ țİ M : Ƞ੝ ȖȐȡ Ĳİ Ȍ
5.147 ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ M : ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ Ȍ
5.178 ĲȠȚ M : ĲȚ Ȍ
5.206 țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ M : țȡĮĲોȡȠȢ Ȍ
5.229 İ੝ȘȖİȞȑȠȢ M : İ੝ȖİȞȑȠȢ Ȍ
5.247 ਥȞ M : ȝİĲૅ Ȍ
5.275 ĲȠȚ M : ıȠȚ Ȍ
5.280 ȞȚȞ M (ȝȚȞ Hermann) : Ȟ૨Ȟ Ȍ
9.1 ȂȑȜȘĲȠȢ M : ȂİȜȒĲȘȢ vel ȂȚȜȒĲȘȢ Ȍ
9.8 Ĳİ om. Ȍ
11.4 ȞȚıȩȝİȞȠȞ M : ȞȚııȩȝİȞȠȞ Ȍ
Additional errors shared by some but not all of the Ȍ-manuscripts allow
them to be divided into two sub-families: Ĭ (AtDETLȆ) and p (AQBīPV).
The Ĭ-manuscripts can be further divided between f (AtD) and x (ETLȆ);
and the x-manuscripts can be further divided between a (ET) and b (LȆ).
Ĭ in independent error vs. either (1) the consensus of Mp (where Mp pre-
serve the correct reading) or (2) p alone (where p preserve the correct read-
ing, and M is lacunose or in error), at e.g.:79
1.16 ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ Mp : ȤȡȣıȒȜĮĲȠȞ Ĭ
1.67 İ੡ĲȣțĲȠȞ Mp : İ੡ĲȚțĲȠȞ Ĭ
6.12 țȠıȝİȓıșȘȞ p : țȠıȝȓıșȘȞ Ĭ : țȠıȝȒıșȘȞ M
27.13 į૵ȝĮ p : į૵ȝĮ ȝİĲ੹ Ĭ : vers. om. M
29.3 ਩ȜĮȤİȢ p : ਩ȜĮȤİ Ĭ : vers. om. M
f in independent error vs. either (1) the consensus of Mxp or (2) xp alone
(where xp preserve the correct reading, and M is lacunose), at e.g.:80
5.13 ıĮĲȓȞĮ Mxp (ıĮĲȓȞĮȢ Ĳİ Barnes) : ıțȪĲȚȞĮ f
5.46 ȝȚȤșȒȝİȞĮȚ Mxp : ȝȚȖȒȝİȞĮȚ f
5.160 Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ Mxp : ੕ȡİıȚȞ f
5.214 ਕȖȒȡȦȢ Mpx : ਕȖȒȡĮȠȢ f
_____________
79 Ĭ also offer corrections or innovations in the paradosis as preserved in MĬ at 1.56,
189 (both discussed below).
80 In addition, f offer a correction or innovation in the paradosis as preserved in MĬ
at: 53 ਙȡĮ f : ਙȡૅ MĬ
46 Introduction
5.237 įȒ ĲȠȚ Mx (įૅ ਵĲȠȚ Hermann) : įȒ ĲȚ f : įૅ Ƞ੡ĲȠȚ p

5.293 ਙȜȜȠȞ ਥȢ ੢ȝȞȠȞ Mpx : ਥȢ ਙȜȜȠȞ ੢ȝȞȠȞ f
9.4 ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİȚȠȞ Mpx : ʌĮȖȤȡȪıȚȠȞ f
28.13 ਫ਼ʌૅ ੑȕȡȓȝȘȢ px : ਫ਼ʌૅ ੑȝȕȡȓȝȘȢ f : vers. om. M
29.6 ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ px : ૽ǼıĲȓȘ f : vers. om. M
29.11 ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ px : ૽ǼıĲȓȘȚ vel ૽ǼıĲȓȘ f : vers. om. M
x in independent error vs. either (1) the consensus of Mfp or (2) fp alone
(where fp preserve the correct reading, and M is lacunose), at:81
5.57 ਥțʌȐȖȜȦȢ Mfp : ਥțʌȜȐȖȜȦȢ x
5.145 įȑ Mfp : Ĳȑ x
a in independent error vs. the consensus of the other manuscripts at e.g.:82
5.92 ȤĮ૙ȡİ MfpL : ȤĮ૙ȡૅ a
5.97 vers. om. a
5.108 ਝȖȤȓıȘ MfpL : ਝȖȤȓıĲȘ a
5.113 ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ … ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ MfpL : ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ … ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ a
5.154 į૨ȞĮȚ MfpL : įȠ૨ȞĮȚ a
5.207 ȉȡ૵Į ȂfbL : ȉȡ૵Ȣ a (et Ȇmg)
5.250 ıȣȞȑȝȚȟĮ Mpfb (ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟĮ West) : ıȣȞȑȝȚȟĮȢ a
5.256 ੅įȘȚ MfpL : ਵįȘ a
5.292 İ੝țĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ MfpL : İ੝țĲȚıȝȑȞȘȢ a
9.8 ıȑșİȞ MfpL : ıȑșૅ a
b do not agree in error anywhere in the text of the Hymns treated in this
edition, but do agree in other ways that support treating them (as Càssola
(1975) argues) as copies of a single exemplar at 5.214, 244, 262 (all dis-
cussed below).83
p in independent error vs. either (1) the consensus of MĬ (where MĬ pre-
serve the correct reading) or (2) Ĭ alone (where Ĭ preserve the correct
reading, and M is lacunose or in error), at e.g.:84
_____________
81 Note also 5.205 ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ fp : ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞ M : ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞȠȢ x (discussed below).
82 Note also 5.262 ıİȚȜȘȞȠȓ p : ıȚȜȘȞȠȓ Mfb : ıİȜȘȞȠȓ a (discussed below).
83 L offers important minor corrections in the text, presumably representing the work
of a talented 15th-century copyist but lacking any other authority, at:
5.99 ʌİȓıİĮ, ȕȘs L (ʌȓıİĮ Ruhnken) : ȕȒıİĮ cett.
5.125 ĳȣıȚȗȩȠȣ L : ĳȣıȚȗȫȠȣ cett.
84 p also offer the following corrections or innovations in the paradosis as preserved
in MĬ:
5 tit. İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ Ĭ : ੢ȝȞȠȢ İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ p : ĲȠ૨ Į੝ĲȠ૨ ૽ȅȝȒȡȠȣ ੢ȝȞȠȚ İੁȢ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ M
5.245 Ĳૅ p : Ȗૅ MĬ
5.20 ʌȩȜȚȢ Ĭ (ʌĲȩȜȚȢ mg.ī Chalc.) : ʌȩȜİȚȢ M : ʌȩȞȠȢ p

5.39 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ MĬ : țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ p
5.50 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ MĬ : țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ p
5.73 ȕȐȜૅ Ĭ : ȝȐȜૅ p : vers. om. M
5.84 șĮȪȝĮȚȞȑȞ Ĭ : șȐȝȕĮȚȞȑȞ p : vers. om. M
5.102 ੮ȡȘȚıȚȞ Ĭ : ੮ȡȘȚıȚ p : vers. om. M
5.134 İੁįȣȓȘȚ vel İੁįȪȘȚ MĬ : İੁįİȓȘȚ p
5.136–6a in unum Ƞ੡ ıĳȚȞ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȖȣȞ੽ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਱੻ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝Ȥȓ
iunxerunt p
5.146 ਕȖȠȡİȪİȚȢ MĬ : ਕȖȠȡȐȗİȚȢ p
5.152 ʌȡȠ૘Ș ȂĬ (ʌȡȠȧોȚ Gemoll) : ʌȡȠ૘ȠȚ p
5.169 ਕȞșİȝȠȑȞĲȦȞ MĬ : ਕȞșİȝȠȪȞĲȦȞ p
5.178 ੁȞįȐȜȜȠȝĮȚ MĬ : ੁȞįȐȜȠȝĮȚ p
5.194 ĲȠȓ ĲȚ Ĭ : Ĳȓ ĲȠȚ M : ĲȚ p
5.218 ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ MĬ : ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȞ p
5.237 įȒ ĲȠȚ Mx (įૅ ਵĲȠȚ Hermann) : įȒ ĲȚ f : įૅ Ƞ੡ĲȠȚ p
5.269 ʌĮȡİıĲȒțİȚ MĬ (ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȘȚ Stephanus) : ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȠȚ p
5.279 ȖȘșȒıİȚȢ MĬ : ȖȘșȒıĮȚȢ p
5.280 ਙȟİȚȢ MĬ : ਙȟĮȚȢ p
6.9 ਙȞșİȝૅ MĬ : ਩Ȟșİȝૅ p
6.18 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ MĬ : ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ p
11.3 ʌĲȩȜİȝȠȚ MĬ : ʌȩȜİȝȠȚ p
28.12 ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȚıȚ Ĭ : ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȞıȚ p : vers. om. M
Of the p-manuscripts, AQ agree in error against the consensus of the other
manuscripts at e.g.:85
6.15 ਩ȡȖૅ ȍ : ਩ȡȖĮ AQ
6.32 ʌȡȑıȕİȚȡĮ ȍ : ʌȡȑıȕİȚĮ AQ
6.72 ĳȡİı੿ ȍ : ĳȡİı੿Ȟ AQ
6.104 İੁıȠʌȓıȦ ȍ : İੁıȠʌİȓıȦ AQ
6.160 ਥȞ om.
6.225 İ੆ȦȢ ȍ : ੆ȦȢ AQ
6.249 ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ȍ : ʌȐȞĲİȢ AQ
27.22 ਥȖઅȞ ȍ : ਥȖઅ AQ
_____________
85 In the two catalogues that follow, I ignore occasional minor errors in other mem-
bers of the Ȍ-family as irrelevant to the point at hand. As elsewhere below, where
sigla for larger groups of manuscripts appear, the reports that follow routinely in-
clude exceptions of various sorts. Thus “ĳȡİı੿ ȍ : ĳȡİı੿Ȟ AQ” means that ĳȡİı੿
must have been the reading in ȍ and is universally represented in the tradition, ex-
cept that ĳȡİı੿Ȟ appears in AQ; while “ਵİıĮȞ Ȍ : ਵİııĮȞ Bī” means that ਵİıĮȞ
must have been the reading in Ȍ and is universally represented in the Ȍ-tradition,
except that ਵİııĮȞ appears in Bī.
48 Introduction
28.5 ĲİȪȤİૅ ȍ : ĲİȪȤૅ AQ

29.14 ਥȖઅȞ ȍ : ਥȖઅ AQ
Of the p-manuscripts, Bī also agree in error against the consensus of the
other manuscripts at:
5.72 ਵİıĮȞ Ȍ : ਵİııĮȞ Bī : vers. om. M
5.89 ȤȡȪıİȚȠȚ Ȍ : ȤȡȪıİȠȚ Bī : vers. om. M
5.112 İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲȠȚȠ Ȍ : İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲİȚȠ Bī : vers. om. M
5.198 ਩ııİĲĮȚ ȍ : ਙııİĲĮȚ Bī
5.288 ıİ ȍ : Ĳİ Bī
6.1 ǹੁįȠȓȘȞ ȍ : ੁįȠȓȘȞ Bī86
27.1 ਵİıĮȞ Ȍ : ਵİııĮȞ Bī
AQ, on the one hand, and Bī, on the other, must accordingly be descend-
ants of two individual copies of p. Of the remaining p-manuscripts, Càsso-
la (1975) and Faulkner (2008) treat P as the only significant member of
the group PL2L3R1R2R3H. But none of these manuscripts is obviously the
source from which the others were copied; and (e.g.) L2L3 do not repeat P’s
errors at 5.147 (ਪțĮĲȚ pro ਪțȘĲȚ), 216 (ȖİȖȒșİ pro ȖİȖȒșİȚ), meaning that it
was certainly not their exemplar. The members of this group ought thus all
probably to recognized as independent copies of a single lost member of
the p-group. As a practical matter, however, the p-group is already well-
represented (by AQBīV); and as our knowledge of the text of the Hymns
is not appreciably increased by a more detailed parsing of this section of
the stemma, I follow previous editors in treating P as representative of its
group.
As Càssola (1975) 612 argued, therefore, the overall stemma is as fol-
lows:
_____________
86 Thus also D. The problem is patently the product of an exemplar in which the large
initial capital in the first line of an individual Hymn, usually written in the red ink,
was either omitted or had faded into illegibility.
M Ȍ
f x p
At D
a b
E T L Ȇ A B ī Q P V
M is thus the sole surviving representative of one branch of the tradition,

meaning that its authority is in principle equivalent to that of all the other
manuscripts of the Hymns combined, although in fact it appears to contain
considerably more errors than Ȍ did. As a further general principle, when-
ever MĬ agree against p, or Mp agree against Ĭ, the reading in M must
also have been the reading in Ȍ (and thus in ȍ), and the other reading has
no authority. So too, when fp agree against x, or xp agree against f, the
reading in p must also have been the reading in Ȍ, and the other reading
has no authority; and when fa agree against b, or fb agree against a, the
reading in f must also have been the reading in Ĭ, and the other reading has
no authority.
50 Introduction
Reconstruction and assessment of the version of the text in Ȍ is none-

theless complicated by scattered evidence that the manuscript preserved a
number of marginal or superlinear variant readings adopted by some of its
descendants but not by others. The clearest example is 5.214, where M
offers ੇıĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ, but fbp have ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ, which must (on the princi-
ples articulated above) have been the reading in Ȍ. a, however, offer ੇıĮ
șİȠ૙ıȚ, and b preserve the reading as a variant in the margin (Ȗȡ. ੇıĮ
șİȠ૙ıȚ), leaving little doubt that it was preserved somehow in Ȍ and in Ȍ’s
descendant Ĭ, although f and p ignored the variant.87 Similar variants else-
where appear to have consisted of only a letter or two written above the
line. Thus at 5.205, M has ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞ, while Ȍ (as represented by fp) had
ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ; but x have ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞȠȢ, which must represent a clumsy interpo-
lation of a superlinear ȠȞ into the text. So too at 5.262, ıȚȜȘȞȠȓ (Mfb) must
represent the reading in Ȍ as well as ȍ, on the one hand, and in Ĭ, on the
other. But the variant readings in a (ıİȜȘȞȠȓ) and p (ıİȚȜȘȞȠȓ) are most
easily understood as evidence for the presence of a superlinear İ in Ȍ,
which Ĭ and x preserved; f and b ignored; a substituted for the paradosis Ț;
and p brought into the text. Likewise at 5.22, ਦıĲȓȘ in Mf must represent
the reading in Ȍ, as well as in ȍ, and the variant reading in px is best un-
derstood as evidence for the existence of a superlinear Ț in Ȍ, which Ĭ
preserved; f ignored; and px substituted for the paradosis İ, producing
૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ. That both ıİȚȜȘȞȠȓ and ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ are almost certainly correct attests
to the value of these corrections in Ȍ, whose source is unknown but was
certainly not M or any manuscript descended from M. Other, less conclu-
sive examples of what may be additional superlinear variants or corrections
in Ȍ accepted into the text in some but not all of Ȍ’s descendants in-
clude:88
5.6 ʌȐıȚ įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ MfBīV (ʌȐıȚ į੻ ਩ȡȖĮ Hoffmann) : ʌȐıȚȞ įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ
xAQP
5.118 ȤȡȣıȘȜȐĲȠȣ xp : ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ Mf
5.123 ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ MDL : ਙĲȚțĲȠȞ p : ਙțĲȚıĲȠȞ Ata
5.141 įĮȓȞȣ vel įĮ૙Ȟȣ Ma ī : įĮȓȞȞȣ fLp
5.203 ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ਦઁȞ fp : ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ਥȞઁȞ x (ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ੔Ȟ Hermann) : ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ
ĮੁȞઁȞ M
5.244 ĲȐȤĮ Mabsp : țĮĲ੹ fb
5.268 ĲȠȚ fp : ĲȚ Mx
11.3 ʌȩȜȚİȢ ĬBīPpcV : ʌȩȜȘİȢ MAQPac
_____________
87 5.244 ĲȐȤĮ Mpabs : țĮĲ੹ fb is most likely another example, although the variant
cannot be shown to derive from Ȍ rather than from Ĭ.
88 In all cases, the first reading likely represents the text in Ȍ.
2. Editio Princeps
The Homeric Hymns were first printed, together with the Iliad and the
Odyssey, in Florence in 1488, by Bernardus and Nerius Nerlius, using a
Greek font produced by Demetrius Damilas.89 The editor was Demetrius
Chalcondyles (1424–1511), a prominent Greek scholar working at that
point under the patronage of Lorenzo de’ Medici.90 Chalcondyles appears
to have had access to at least one Ĭ-manuscript (the group whose readings
he adopts by preference), and perhaps to an unidentified p-manuscript as
well; he did not know M.
3. This Edition
The text of the Hymns contained in this volume is based on a collation of

all 13 manuscripts discussed in section A, the other members of the P-
group, and the editio princeps. My apparatus generally ignores matters of
word-division, accentuation, and the like, on the ground that these repre-
sent late editorial interventions in the text that tell us nothing about the
content of the uncial text or texts from which ȍ was descended. Readers
interested in such details may consult the apparatus of Càssola (1975),
which is more complete in this regard. I also omit mention of obviously
incorrect readings in individual manuscripts that lack stemmatic signifi-
cance, except that I report M’s reading fully. Finally, I follow Chalcon-
dyles (and the general practice of the manuscripts) in adding nu-moveable
at line-end (where possible) when the next line begins with a vowel, with
no notice in my apparatus of the correction or of manuscript variants in this
regard.
_____________
89 Proctor 6194; Hain 8772.
90 For what is known of Chalcondyles’ career, see Proctor (1900) 6–7, 66, 70–2.
Critical Text and Translation
54 Hymn 5: İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ
Hymn 5: İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ
ȂȠ૨ıȐ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞȞİʌİ ਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ

ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİ
țĮȓ Ĳૅ ਥįĮȝȐııĮĲȠ ĳ૨ȜĮ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
ȠੁȦȞȠȪȢ Ĳİ įȚİȚʌİĲȑĮȢ țĮ੿ șȘȡȓĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ,
5 ਱ȝ੻Ȟ ੖ıૅ ਵʌİȚȡȠȢ ʌȠȜȜ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȢā
1 cf. Il.Parv. fr. 1.1, p. 76 Bernabé ȂȠ૨ıȐ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞȞİʌİ ਩ȡȖĮ, Ĳ੹ ȝȒĲૅ ਥȖȑȞȠȞĲȠ
ʌȐȡȠȚșİ ਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ] cf. Hes. Op. 521 Ƞ੡ ʌȦ ਩ȡȖૅ İੁįȣ૙Į
ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ 2 cf. A.R. 1.850 ȀȪʌȡȚȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİȞ
/ 3–5 cf. Q.S. 8.466–7 įȐȝȞĮĲȠ įૅ ੒ʌʌȩıĮ ĳ૨ȜĮ ĳİȡȑıȕȚȠȢ ਩Ĳȡİĳİ ȖĮ૙Į / ਱įૅ
੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȢ ਩ĳİȡȕİȞ ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ ਱įૅ ੒ʌȩıૅ ੢įȦȡ 5 cf. Hes. Th. 582 țȞȫįĮȜૅ ੖ıૅ
ਵʌİȚȡȠȢ įİȚȞ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ ਱į੻ șȐȜĮııĮ 6 cf. Proclus h. 2.13 ʌ઼ıȚȞ įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ ȝȑȝȘȜİȞ
ਥȡȦĲȠĲȩțȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ ਩ȡȖૅ … ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ] cf. Hes. Op. 521 Ƞ੡
ʌȦ ਩ȡȖૅ İੁįȣ૙Į ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ
1 ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ * at 9; Hes. Th. 980 = fr. 253.3; Op. 521; frr. 185.17
[ʌȠ]ȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ [ਝ]ĳ[ȡȠįȓ]ĲȘȢ; 195.8, 47; [Hes.] Sc. 8, 47 3 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at 122, 192, 200, 281, cf. 52 -Ƞ૙Ȣ -ȠȚȢ (where see apparatus); e.g. Il.
6.123; Od. 3.114; 9.502; 23.126; Hes. fr. 204.112; hAp. 541 5 cf. also Od.
5.422 ਥȟ ਖȜȩȢ, ȠੈȐ Ĳİ ʌȠȜȜ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ țȜȣĲઁȢ ਝȝĳȚĲȡȓĲȘ; Cypr. fr. 9.12, p. 50 Berna-
bé șȘȡȓૅ, ੖ıૅ ਵʌİȚȡȠȢ ʌȠȜȜ੹ ĲȡȑĳİȚ, ੕ĳȡĮ ĳȪȖȠȚ ȞȚȞ; h. 30.3 ਱ȝ੻Ȟ ੖ıĮ ȤșȩȞĮ į૙ĮȞ
ਥʌȑȡȤİĲĮȚ ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȞ
tit. İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ Ĭ : ੢ȝȞȠȢ İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ p : ĲȠ૨ Į੝ĲȠ૨ ૽ȅȝȒȡȠȣ ੢ȝȞȠȚ İੁȢ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ M 1–151 om. Ȇ 3 ਥįĮȝȐııĮĲȠ xp : ਥįĮȝȐıĮĲȠ Mf 2–3 fort.
੕ȡıİ / țĮȓ Ĳİ įĮȝȐııĮĲȠ 4 įȚİȚʌİĲȑĮȢ Schulze : įȚȚʌİĲȑĮȢ Ȍ : įȚİȚʌİĲȑĮ M
6 ʌ઼ıȚ MfBīV : ʌ઼ıȚȞ xAQP į੻ ਩ȡȖĮ Hoffmann : įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ ȍ
Hymn 5: To Aphrodite 55
Hymn 5: To Aphrodite
Tell, Muse, if you will, of the deeds of Aphrodite rich in gold,

the Cyprian, who arouses sweet desire in the gods
and subdues the tribes of human mortals,
and the birds that swoop through the sky, and all the wild beasts,
however many the mainland and the sea nurture; 5
ʌ઼ıȚ į੻ ਩ȡȖĮ ȝȑȝȘȜİȞ ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ.

ĲȡȚıı੹Ȣ įૅ Ƞ੝ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌĮĲોıĮȚā
țȠȪȡȘȞ Ĳૅ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ ǻȚઁȢ ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ ਝșȒȞȘȞā
Ƞ੝ ȖȐȡ Ƞੂ ਚįİ ਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ,
10 ਕȜȜૅ ਙȡĮ Ƞੂ ʌȩȜİȝȠȓ Ĳİ ਚįȠȞ țĮ੿ ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਡȡȘȠȢ,
ਫ਼ıȝ૙ȞĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ, țĮ੿ ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖૅ ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚȞ.
ʌȡȫĲȘ ĲȑțĲȠȞĮȢ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȠȣȢ ਥįȓįĮȟİ
ʌȠȚોıĮȚ ıĮĲȓȞĮ‫ۃ‬Ȣ Ĳİ‫ ۄ‬țĮ੿ ਚȡȝĮĲĮ ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ ȤĮȜț૵Țā
਴ įȑ Ĳİ ʌĮȡșİȞȚț੹Ȣ ਖʌĮȜȩȤȡȠĮȢ ਥȞ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ
15 ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖૅ ਥįȓįĮȟİȞ ਥʌ੿ ĳȡİı੿ șİ૙ıĮ ਦțȐıĲȘȚ.
6 forms of ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ * at 287; Od. 8.288; 18.193; Hes. Th. 196, 1008
8 = Hes. Th. 13 ~ Il. 10.553 (nominative) ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ ǻȚȩȢ * also at e.g. Il. 1.202,
222; 2.157; Od. 4.762 = 6.324; Hes. Th. 13, 920; hHerm. 183 forms of
ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȢ ਝșȒȞȘ * also at 94; e.g. Il. 1.206; 2.166; 5.29; Od. 1.44, 80; 2.382; Hes.
Th. 573; Op. 72; [Hes.] Sc. 470; hAp. 314 9 ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ * at 1
(where see apparatus) 10 ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਡȡȘȠȢ * at Il. 11.734 14 ʌĮȡșİȞȚț੹Ȣ
ਖʌĮȜȩȤȡȠĮȢ * at Hes. Op. 519 -ોȢ –ȠȢ
11 forms of ਫ਼ıȝ૙ȞĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ * at Od. 11.612; Hes. Th. 228 forms of

ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚȞ * at Il. 13.23; Od. 11.186; hHerm. 85, 476 12 forms of ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȠȣȢ
* at e.g. Il. 1.126; 2.553; Hes. Op. 122 13 ਚȡȝĮĲĮ ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ ȤĮȜț૵Ț * at Il.
4.226; 10.322, 393; ਚȡȝĮĲĮ ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ alone * also at Il. 5.239; ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ ȤĮȜț૵Ț alone
* also at Il. 6.504; 12.396; 14.420; [Hes.] Sc. 423 14 ਥȞ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ * at e.g. Il.
1.418; 6.371, 528; Od. 1.432; 3.401; Hes. Th. 384; Op. 377
8 Ĳૅ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ Ȍ : Ȗૅ ĮੁȤȚȩȤȠȚȠ Mac : Ȗૅ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ Mpc ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ M : ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįૅ Ȍ

9 ਚįİ scripsi, Pelliccia ducente : İ੡ĮįİȞ ȍ 10–11 ਚįȠȞ țĮ੿ ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਡȡȘȠȢ, /
ਫ਼ıȝ૙ȞĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ om. a 10 ਚįȠȞ Mpc : ਙįȠȞ Mac : ਙįİȞ Ȍ : om. a
13 ıĮĲȓȞĮ‫ۃ‬Ȣ Ĳİ‫ ۄ‬Barnes : ıȐĲȚȞĮ ȍ : ıțȪĲȚȞĮ f 15 fort. ਩ȡȖĮ įȓįĮȟİȞ ਩ȡȖૅ ȍ :
਩ȡȖĮ AQ
the deeds of fair-garlanded Cytherea interest them all.

Three minds, however, she cannot convince or deceive.
First, the daughter of aegis-bearing Zeus, gleaming-eyed Athena;
for the deeds of Aphrodite rich in gold do not interest her.
Instead, she is interested in war and Ares’ business, 10
combats and fights, and in occupying herself with fine crafts.
She was the first to teach craftsmen on the earth
to produce fancy carts and chariots with bronze ornamentation;
she also teaches soft-skinned young girls in their homes
about fine crafts, making them all concerned with them. 15
Ƞ੝įȑ ʌȠĲૅ ਝȡĲȑȝȚįĮ ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ

įȐȝȞĮĲĮȚ ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘā
țĮ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ ĲોȚ ਚįİ ĲȩȟĮ țĮ੿ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ
ĳȩȡȝȚȖȖȑȢ Ĳİ ȤȠȡȠȓ Ĳİ įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȓ Ĳૅ ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ
20 ਙȜıİȐ Ĳİ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ įȚțĮȓȦȞ Ĳİ ʌĲȩȜȚȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ.
Ƞ੝į੻ ȝ੻Ȟ ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ țȠȪȡȘȚ ਚįİ ਩ȡȖૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ
૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ, ਴Ȟ ʌȡȫĲȘȞ ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ,
Į੣ĲȚȢ įૅ ੒ʌȜȠĲȐĲȘȞ ȕȠȣȜોȚ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ,
ʌȩĲȞȚĮȞ, ਴Ȟ ਥȝȞ૵ȞĲȠ ȆȠıİȚįȐȦȞ țĮ੿ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞā
25 ਴ į੻ ȝȐȜૅ Ƞ੝ț ਩șİȜİȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ ਕʌȑİȚʌİȞ,
16 ਝȡĲȑȝȚįĮ ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ] cf. 118; Il. 20.70–1 ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȢ

țİȜĮįİȚȞȒ / ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ; h. 27.1 ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ … ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ 18 țĮ੿
Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ] cf. Il. 21.485 țĮĲૅ Ƞ੡ȡİĮ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ*; h. 19.13 șોȡĮȢ
ਥȞĮȓȡȦȞ*; Nonn. 11.296 ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ* 19 įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȓ Ĳૅ
ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ] cf. Call. h. 4.258 įȚĮʌȡȣıȓȘȞ ੑȜȠȜȣȖȒȞ / 20 cf. Call. h. 3.122 ਕȜȜȐ
ȝȚȞ İੁȢ ਕįȓțȦȞ ਩ȕĮȜİȢ ʌȩȜȚȞ 22 ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ * at 42; Il. 4.59
25–6 cf. Il. 23.42 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ੒ ਱ȡȞİ૙ĲȠ ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ, ਥʌ੿ įૅ ੖ȡțȠȞ ੕ȝȠııİȞ
16 form of ਝȡĲȑȝȚįĮ ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ * also at 118 -ȠȢ -Ƞȣ -ોȢ (where
see apparatus) 17 ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ * at Il. 7.302 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ * at 49,
56, 65, cf. 155; Il. 5.375; Od. 8.362; Hes. Th. 989; fr. 176.1; Cypr. fr. 5.1, p. 47
Bernabé 22 forms of ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ * also at Hes. Th. 18, 137, 168,
473, 495 23 ȕȠȣȜોȚ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ * at Vit. Herod. 175; ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ alone *
at 27 (where see apparatus); e.g. Il. 2.348; 3.426; 5.733; Od. 3.42; 6.105; Hes. Th.
25, 52; fr. 343.2; h. 28.7 24 ȆȠıİȚįȐȦȞ țĮ੿ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ * at Il. 12.17, 34; Hes.
fr. 235.5
16 ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ MAQīP : ȤȡȣıȒȜĮĲȠȞ Ĭ : ȤȡȣıȒȜĮțĲȠȞ B : ȤȡȣıȚȜȐțĮĲȠȞ V

17 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ p : ĳȚȜȠȝİȚį੽Ȣ MĬ 18 țĮ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ ĲોȚ ਙįİ (ਚįİ Aldus) Ȍ : țĮ੿ ȖȐȡ
ĲȠȚ ਙįİ AQB : ʌȠȣȜȪȤȡȣıĮ į੻ M ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ Ȍ : ਕȞĮȓȡİȚȞ M 20 ʌĲȩȜȚȢ īmg
Chalcondyles : ʌȩȜȚȢ Ĭ : ʌȩȜİȚȢ M : ʌȩȞȠȢ p 21 ਚįİ scripsi : ਚįİȞ ȍ
22 ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ Ȍ : ૽ǼıĲȓȘ f : ૽ǼıĲȓૉ M 23 ȕȠȣȜોȚ ǻȚઁȢ ȍ : ǻȚઁȢ ȕȠȣȜોȚ ȉī
25 ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ Ȍ : ıĲİȡ૵Ȣ M
Nor does smile-loving Aphrodite ever overpower Artemis

of the gold arrow-shafts and loud cries with love;
for she is interested in bows and in killing wild animals
in the mountains,
and in lyres, dances, shrill hosannahs,
shady sacred groves, and the city of just men. 20
Nor do the deeds of Aphrodite interest the respectable young woman
Hestia, who was the first child born to crooked-counselled Cronus,
as well as the last, by the will of Zeus the aegis-bearer,
an important lady, whom Poseidon and Apollo courted.
But she was utterly unwilling, and stubbornly refused; 25
੭ȝȠıİ į੻ ȝȑȖĮȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ, ੔ į੽ ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ,

ਖȥĮȝȑȞȘ țİĳĮȜોȢ ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ,
ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ ਩ııİıșĮȚ ʌȐȞĲૅ ਵȝĮĲĮ į૙Į șİȐȦȞ.
ĲોȚ į੻ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ǽİઃȢ į૵țİ țĮȜઁȞ ȖȑȡĮȢ ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚȠ,
30 țĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȑıȦȚ Ƞ੅țȦȚ țĮĲૅ ਙȡૅ ਪȗİĲȠ ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ,
ʌ઼ıȚȞ įૅ ਥȞ ȞȘȠ૙ıȚ șİ૵Ȟ ĲȚȝȐȠȤȩȢ ਥıĲȚ,
țĮ੿ ʌĮȡ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚ șİ૵Ȟ ʌȡȑıȕİȚȡĮ ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ.
ĲȐȦȞ Ƞ੝ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌĮĲોıĮȚā
Ĳ૵Ȟ įૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ Ƞ੡ ʌȑȡ ĲȚ ʌİĳȣȖȝȑȞȠȞ ਩ıĲૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ
35 Ƞ੡Ĳİ șİ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ Ƞ੡Ĳİ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ.
26 ੔ į੽ ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ * at Il. 1.388 29 cf. Hes. Th. 585 Ĳİ૨ȟİ țĮȜઁȞ
țĮțઁȞ ਕȞĲૅ ਕȖĮșȠ૙Ƞ; h. 29.4 / țĮȜઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ ȖȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ĲȚȝȒȞ; Od. 20.307 țĮȓ țȑ ĲȠȚ
ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚȠ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ĲȐĳȠȞ ਕȝĳİʌȠȞİ૙ĲȠ 30 ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ] cf. Il. 11.550 = 17.659
Ƞ੆ Ĳȑ ȝȚȞ Ƞ੝ț İੁ૵ıȚ ȕȠ૵Ȟ ਥț ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȑıșĮȚ 31–2 cf. hDem. 268–9 İੁȝ੿ į੻
ǻȘȝȒĲȘȡ ĲȚȝȐȠȤȠȢ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȞ / ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȢ șȞȘĲȠ૙ıȓ Ĳૅ ੕ȞİĮȡ țĮ੿ ȤȐȡȝĮ
ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ 33 cf. 7
26 ੔ į੽ ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ] cf. also e.g. Il. 1.212; 2.257; 8.286, 454; 18.4; Od.
16.440; 17.229; 19.547 27 ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ * at Il. 7.60; 11.66; 22.221;
[Hes.] Sc. 322; ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ alone * also at 23 (where see apparatus) 28 į૙Į
șİȐȦȞ * at 172; e.g. Il. 5.381; 6.305; 14.184; Od. 1.14; 4.382, 398; Hes. Th. 376;
hDem. 63; [Hes.] Sc. 338 30 țĮĲૅ ਙȡૅ ਪȗİĲȠ * at e.g. Il. 1.68 = 101 = 2.76
(etc.); Od. 2.417; 3.469; 16.46; hHerm. 365 ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ] cf. Il. 11.550 =
17.659 ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȑıșĮȚ*; ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ alone * also at 115 (where see apparatus)
32 ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚ șİ૵Ȟ * at Il. 9.159 ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ * at e.g. Il. 17.690; Od. 17.102; Hes.
Op. 745; hDem. 269 35 șİ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ alone * also at Il. 1.339; Od. 8.281;
9.276; Hes. frr. 25.31; 309.1; hDem. 345; hHerm. 71, 251 Ƞ੡Ĳİ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ alone * also at 149 (where see apparatus) 35 = Od. 9.521 = Hes. fr.
204.117 = hHerm. 144
28 ਩ııİıșĮȚ xAQVP : ਩ıİıșĮȚ MfBī 30 ʌ૙Įȡ Ȍ : ʌİ૙Įȡ M 31 ʌ઼ıȚȞ Ȍ :

ʌ઼ıȚ MEac 32 ʌȡȑıȕİȚȡĮ ȍ : ʌȡȑıȕİȚĮ AQ : ʌȡȑıȕȣȡĮ AtV
and she swore a great oath—which has in fact been fulfilled—

touching the head of father Zeus the aegis-bearer,
that she would be a virgin all her life, brilliant among the goddesses.
Father Zeus granted her a fine mark of honor in place of marriage,
and she took sacrificial fat and sat down in the center of his house; 30
she occupies a position of honor in all the temples of the gods
and is the most respected of the gods in all mortals’ eyes.
Aphrodite cannot convince or deceive the minds of these three ladies.
But nothing else, whether blessed god or human
mortal, is exempt from her power. 35
țĮȓ Ĳİ ʌȐȡİț ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİ ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȠȣ,

੖Ȣ Ĳİ ȝȑȖȚıĲȩȢ Ĳૅ ਥıĲ੿ ȝİȖȓıĲȘȢ Ĳૅ ਩ȝȝȠȡİ ĲȚȝોȢā
țĮȓ Ĳİ ĲȠ૨ İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਥȟĮʌĮĳȠ૨ıĮ
૧ȘȧįȓȦȢ ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓȞ,
40 ૠǾȡȘȢ ਥțȜİȜĮșȠ૨ıĮ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȢ ਕȜȩȤȠȣ Ĳİ,
਴ ȝȑȖĮ İੇįȠȢ ਕȡȓıĲȘ ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ șİોȚıȚ,
țȣįȓıĲȘȞ įૅ ਙȡĮ ȝȚȞ ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ
ȝȒĲȘȡ Ĳİ ૽ȇİȓȘā ǽİઃȢ įૅ ਙĳșȚĲĮ ȝȒįİĮ İੁįȫȢ
ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ ʌȠȚȒıĮĲȠ țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ.
36–7 cf. Mosch. 76 ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਴ ȝȠȪȞȘ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ țĮ੿ ǽોȞĮ įĮȝȐııĮȚ 36 cf. Il.
10.391 ʌȠȜȜોȚıȓȞ ȝૅ ਙĲȘȚıȚ ʌȐȡİț ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİȞ ૠǼțĲȦȡ 38 cf. Il. 14.160 ੖ʌʌȦȢ
ਥȟĮʌȐĳȠȚĲȠ ǻȚઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ, 294 ੪Ȣ įૅ ੅įİȞ, ੮Ȣ ȝȚȞ ਩ȡȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ
ਕȝĳİțȐȜȣȥİȞ 42 cf. 22; Il. 4.59 țĮȓ ȝİ ʌȡİıȕȣĲȐĲȘȞ ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ
ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ 43 ǽİઃȢ įૅ ਙĳșȚĲĮ ȝȒįİĮ İੁįȫȢ * at Hes. Th. 550 44 ਙȜȠȤȠȞ
ʌȠȚȒıĮĲȠ țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ * at hAp. 313
36 forms of ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȠȣ * at e.g. Il. 1.419; 8.2; 16.232; Od. 17.437; Hes. Op.
52; hDem. 485 37 ੖Ȣ Ĳİ ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ] cf. Il. 15.37 = Od. 5.185 = hAp. 85
਩ȝȝȠȡİ ĲȚȝોȢ * at Il. 1.278; 15.189; Od. 11.338; Hes. Th. 414, 426; cf. Od. 5.335
ਥȟȑȝȝȠȡİ ĲȚȝોȢ / 38 ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ * at 243; Il. 14.294 39 ıȣȞȑȝȚȟİ
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓȞ * at 50, 250 (ıȣȞȑȝȚȟĮ); cf. 52 ਕȞȑȝȚȟİ ț. Ȗ.* 40 ૠǾȡȘȢ
… țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȢ ਕȜȩȤȠȣ Ĳİ] cf. Il. 16.432 ૠǾȡȘȞ … țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȩȞ Ĳİ*; 18.356
ૠǾȡȘȞ … țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȩȞ Ĳİ /; h. 12.3 țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȩȞ Ĳİ* 41 İੇįȠȢ
ਕȡȓıĲȘ] cf. Il. 2.715; 3.124; 6.252; 13.365, 378; Od. 7.57; hDem. 146
42 ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ * at 22 (where see apparatus) 43 ǽİઃȢ įૅ
ਙĳșȚĲĮ ȝȒįİĮ İੁįȫȢ] cf. also Il. 24.88; Hes. Th. 545, 561; fr. 234.2 ǽİઃȢ ਙĳșȚĲĮ
ȝȒįİĮ İੁįȫȢ; hDem. 321 44 forms of țȑįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙Į * also at 134; Od. 1.428;
19.346; 20.57; 23.182, 232; cf. forms of țȑįȞૅ İੁįȣ૙Į * at h.Cer. 195, 202
37 Ĳૅ1 om. M ਩ȝȝȠȡİ ȍ : ਩ȝȠȡİ TacBī 38 İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ M : İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȠȚ vel İ੣Ĳİ
șȑȜȠȚ Ȍ 39 ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ West : ıȣȞȑȝȚȟİ ȍ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȍ : țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ p
42 ĲȑțİĲȠ Ȍ : Ĳȑțİ M 44 țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ scripsi : țȑįȞૅ İੁįȣ૙ĮȞ ȍ
She even leads astray the mind of Zeus who delights in lightning,
although he is the most important and gets the most important
share of honor;
whenever she wants, she deceives his subtle mind
and easily involves him with mortal women,
evading the notice of Hera, his wife and sister, 40
who is far and away the loveliest among the immortal goddesses.
Hera was the most prominent child that crooked-counselled Cronus
and her mother Rhea produced; Zeus, whose plans never fail,
made her his respectable, well-disposed wife.
45 ĲોȚ į੻ țĮ੿ Į੝ĲોȚ ǽİઃȢ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț

ਕȞįȡ੿ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ț ȝȚȤșȒȝİȞĮȚ, ੕ĳȡĮ ĲȐȤȚıĲĮ
ȝȘįૅ Į੝Ĳ੽ ȕȡȠĲȑȘȢ İ੝ȞોȢ ਕʌȠİȡȖȝȑȞȘ İ੅Ș
țĮȓ ʌȠĲૅ ਥʌİȣȟĮȝȑȞȘ İ੅ʌȘȚ ȝİĲ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ
ਲįઃ ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ,
50 ੮Ȣ ૧Į șİȠઃȢ ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ
țĮȓ Ĳİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠઃȢ ȣੈĮȢ ĲȑțȠȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ,
੮Ȣ Ĳİ șİ੹Ȣ ਕȞȑȝİȚȟİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙Ȣ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ.
ਝȖȤȓıİȦ įૅ ਙȡĮ Ƞੂ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț,
੔Ȣ ĲȩĲૅ ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİıȚȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ
45 ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț] cf. 53*, 143* = Il. 3.139 ੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ șİ੹ ȖȜȣțઃȞ
੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț 50 ~ 250 53 ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț] cf. 45*,
143* = Il. 3.139 ੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ șİ੹ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț 54–5 cf. Il.
2.820–1 ĲઁȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ Ĳȑțİ į૙ૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ, / ੍įȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ șİ੹ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț
İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ; 5.313 ਸ਼ ȝȚȞ ੢ʌૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ Ĳȑțİ ȕȠȣțȠȜȑȠȞĲȚ /; Hes. Th. 1009–10 ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ
ਸ਼ȡȦȚ ȝȚȖİ૙ıૅ ਥȡĮĲોȚ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ / ੍įȘȢ ਥȞ țȠȡȣĳોȚıȚ ʌȠȜȣʌĲȪȤȠȣ ਱ȞİȝȠȑııȘȢ
54 cf. Il. 14.157 ǽોȞĮ įૅ ਥʌૅ ਕțȡȠĲȐĲȘȢ țȠȡȣĳોȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ
45 ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț * also at 53, 143; ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț * also at Il. 13.82;
16.529; Od. 19.485; 23.260 46 ੕ĳȡĮ ĲȐȤȚıĲĮ * at e.g. Il. 18.344; Od. 6.32;
hAp. 434; [Hes.] Sc. 108 48 ȝİĲ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ * at hAp. 316; ʌ઼ıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ *
also at e.g. Il. 6.140; 15.368; Od. 13.298; 14.423; șİȠ૙ıȚȞ * also at 95, 142, 195
49 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ * at 17 (where see apparatus), 56, 65, cf. 155
52 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙Ȣ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ] cf. 3 -૵Ȟ -ȦȞ* (where see apparatus); Hes. fr. 1.7
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙Ȣ Ĳૅ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ* (conjectural) 53 ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț * at
45 (where see apparatus), 143 54 ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİıȚȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ] cf.
ਥʌૅ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİııȚȞ / at Il. 5.523; ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİııȚȞ / at Od. 19.205,
ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ * at Il. 14.157, 307; 20.59, 218; 23.117; Cypr. fr. 5.5, p. 48
Bernabé
46 ȝȚȤșȒȝİȞĮȚ ȍ : ȝȚȖȒȝİȞĮȚ f 47 ȕȡȠĲȑȘȢ Ȍ : ȕȡȠĲȑĮȢ M ਕʌȠİȡȖȝȑȞȘ Ȍ :

ਕʌȠİȚȡȖȝȑȞȘ M 49 ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ Ȍ : ȖİȜȐıĮıĮ M ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ Stephanus :
ĳȚȜȠȝİȚį੽Ȣ ȍ 50 ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ West : ıȣȞȑȝȚȟİ Ȍ : ıȪȝȝȚȟİ M țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȍ :
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ p 51 ȣੈĮȢ Faulkner : ȣੂİ૙Ȣ ȍ ĲȑțȠȞ MT : ĲȑțİȞ Ȍ 52 Ĳİ Ȍ : į੻
M ਕȞȑȝİȚȟİ West : ਕȞȑȝȚȟİ ȍ : ıȣȞȑȝȚȟİ Schäfer 53 ਙȡĮ f : ਙȡૅ ȍ
54 ੕ȡİıȚȞ Ȍ : ੕ȡİıȚ M : ੕ȡİııȚȞ ī ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ scripsi : ʌȠȜȣʌȚįȐțȠȣ ȍ
But Zeus cast sweet desire into the heart of Aphrodite herself 45
to sleep with a mortal man, to bring her exclusion
from mortal beds to a rapid end
and keep her from boastfully announcing in the presence of all the gods
with a happy laugh, smile-loving Aphrodite,
that she involved male gods with mortal women, 50
who bore mortal sons to immortals,
and that she also entangled goddesses with human mortals.
He accordingly implanted sweet desire in her heart for Anchises,
who was then herding cows on the highest peaks
55 ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȞ ȕȠ૨Ȣ, įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȠȚțȫȢ.

ĲઁȞ į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ੁįȠ૨ıĮ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ
਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ, ਥțʌȐȖȜȦȢ į੻ țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ੆ȝİȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ.
ਥȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ įૅ ਥȜșȠ૨ıĮ șȣȫįİĮ ȞȘઁȞ ਩įȣȞİȞ,
ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞā ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȫįȘȢ.
60 ਩Ȟșૅ ਸ਼ Ȗૅ İੁıİȜșȠ૨ıĮ șȪȡĮȢ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ,
਩ȞșĮ įȑ ȝȚȞ ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ ȜȠ૨ıĮȞ țĮ੿ Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ
ਕȝȕȡȩĲȦȚ, ȠੈĮ șİȠઃȢ ਥʌİȞȒȞȠșİȞ Įੁ੻Ȟ ਥȩȞĲĮȢ,
ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȦȚ ਦįĮȞ૵Ț, Ĳȩ ૧Ȑ Ƞੂ ĲİșȣȦȝȑȞȠȞ ਷İȞ.
ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ,
65 Ȥȡȣı૵Ț țȠıȝȘșİ૙ıĮ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ
ıİȪĮĲૅ ਥʌ੿ ȉȡȠȓȘȢ, ʌȡȠȜȚʌȠ૨ıૅ İ੝ȫįİĮ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ,
੢ȥȚ ȝİĲ੹ ȞȑĳİıȚȞ ૧ȓȝĳĮ ʌȡȒııȠȣıĮ țȑȜİȣșȠȞ.
૓ǿįȘȞ įૅ ੆țĮȞİȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ, ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ,
ȕો įૅ ੁșઃȢ ıĲĮșȝȠ૙Ƞ įȚૅ Ƞ੡ȡİȠȢā Ƞ੄ į੻ ȝİĲૅ Į੝ĲȒȞ
55 ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȞ ȕȠ૨Ȣ] cf. Il. 21.448–9 ȕȠ૨Ȣ ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȢ / ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ

ʌȠȜȣʌĲȪȤȠȣ ਫ਼ȜȘȑııȘȢ 57 ਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ * at Il. 16.182 ਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ ȓįȫȞ
59 ~ Od. 8.363 ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞā ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȒİȚȢ 60 = Il. 14.169; cf.
236 61–2 = Od. 8.364–5 63 = Il. 14.172 64 cf. Il. 14.187 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽
ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ șȒțĮĲȠ țȩıȝȠȞ 66 cf. Il. 14.227–8 ıİȪĮĲૅ ਥĳૅ ੂʌʌȠʌȩȜȦȞ
ĬȡȘȚț૵Ȟ ੕ȡİĮ ȞȚĳȩİȞĲĮ, / ਕțȡȠĲȐĲĮȢ țȠȡȣĳȐȢ, Ƞ੝į੻ ȤșȩȞĮ ȝȐȡʌĲİ ʌȠįȠ૙ȚȞ
67 ੢ȥȚ ȝİĲ੹ ȞȑĳİıȚȞ] cf. Od. 16.264 / ੢ȥȚ ʌİȡ ਥȞ ȞİĳȑİııȚ 67–8 ~ Il. 14.282–3
૧ȓȝĳĮ ʌȡȒııȠȞĲİ țȑȜİȣșȠȞ. / ૓ǿįȘȞ įૅ ੂțȑıșȘȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ, ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ
55 įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ * at Od. 3.468 = 23.163; 8.14 56 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ

* at 17 (where see apparatus), 49, 65, cf. 155 64 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ * at 171; Od.
6.111; 13.218; 14.154; 16.79 = 17.550 = 21.339; cf. 232 65 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ * at 17 (where see apparatus), 49, 56, cf. 155 68 ȕો įૅ ੁșȪȢ * at Il.
8.322; Od. 1.119; 17.325
55 ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȞ Ĭ : ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİ MBīVP : ȕȠȣțȠȜȑıțİ AQ 56 į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ

scripsi : įਵʌİȚĲĮ ȍ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ x : ĳȚȜȠȝİȚį੽Ȣ Mfp 57 ਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ Ȍ : ਱ȡȐıĮĲȠ
M ਥțʌȐȖȜȦȢ ȍ : ਥțʌȜȐȖȜȦȢ x : ਩țʌĮȖȜȠȢ Köchly 61 Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ Mfaī : Ȥȡ૙ııĮȞ
Lp 63 ਦįĮȞ૵Ț Clarke : ਦĮȞ૵Ț vel ਥĮȞ૵Ț ȍ 65 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ Estienne :
ĳȚȜȠȝİȚį੽Ȣ ȍ 66 ȉȡȠȓȘȢ M : ȉȡȠȓȘȞ Ȍ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ Ȍ : țોʌȠȞ M 67 ȞȑĳİıȚȞ
૧ȓȝĳĮ Allen : ȞȑĳİıȚ ૧ȓȝĳĮ M : ȞİĳȑİııȚ șȠ૵Ȣ Ȍ : ȞİĳȑİııȚȞ șȠ૵Ȣ AQ
68–112 om. M 68 ੆țĮȞİȞ Lp : ੆țĮȞİ fa șȘȡ૵Ȟ Ȍ : șİ૵Ȟ (sed Ȗȡ. șȘȡ૵Ȟ in
marg.) a
of spring-filled Ida, like to an immortal in his build. 55

When smile-loving Aphrodite saw him, therefore,
she fell in love, and desire took firm control of her mind.
She went to Cyprus and descended into her fragrant temple—
to Paphos; her sacred precinct and her fragrant altar are there.
She went inside there and shut the shining doors; 60
and there the Graces washed her and anointed her with imperishable
oil, the sort that covers the gods who live forever,
imperishable sweet oil, which had been perfumed for her.
And after she carefully put lovely garments about her skin
and was ornamented with gold, smile-loving Aphrodite 65
rushed off in the direction of Troy, leaving delicious-smelling
Cyprus behind,
making her way swiftly, high among the clouds.
She came to spring-filled Ida, the mother of wild beasts,
and made her way along the mountainside straight toward
the cowyard. Fawning
70 ıĮȓȞȠȞĲİȢ ʌȠȜȚȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȪțȠȚ ȤĮȡȠʌȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ

ਙȡțĲȠȚ ʌĮȡįȐȜȚȑȢ Ĳİ șȠĮ੿ ʌȡȠțȐįȦȞ ਕțȩȡȘĲȠȚ
ਵȧıĮȞ. ਴ įૅ ੒ȡȩȦıĮ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ ĲȑȡʌİĲȠ șȣȝȩȞ,
țĮ੿ ĲȠ૙Ȣ ਥȞ ıĲȒșİııȚ ȕȐȜૅ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ, Ƞ੄ įૅ ਚȝĮ ʌȐȞĲİȢ
ıȪȞįȣȠ țȠȚȝȒıĮȞĲȠ țĮĲ੹ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ.
75 Į੝Ĳ੽ įૅ ਥȢ țȜȚıȓĮȢ İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣȢ ਕĳȓțĮȞİā
ĲઁȞ įૅ Ș੤ȡİ ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȞ ȠੇȠȞ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ
ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ ਸ਼ȡȦĮ șİ૵Ȟ ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȞĲĮ.
Ƞੂ įૅ ਚȝĮ ȕȠȣı੿Ȟ ਪʌȠȞĲȠ ȞȠȝȠઃȢ țȐĲĮ ʌȠȚȒİȞĲĮȢ
ʌȐȞĲİȢ, ੔ į੻ ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȢ ȠੇȠȢ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ
80 ʌȦȜİ૙Ĳૅ ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿ ਩ȞșĮ, įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȞ țȚșĮȡȓȗȦȞ.
70 ıĮȓȞȠȞĲİȢ ʌȠȜȚȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȪțȠȚ] cf. Od. 10.218–19 ੬Ȣ ĲȠઃȢ ਕȝĳ੿ ȜȪțȠȚ țȡĮĲİȡȫȞȣȤİȢ
਱į੻ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ / ıĮ૙ȞȠȞ 70–1 ȤĮȡȠʌȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ / ਙȡțĲȠȚ] cf. Od. 11.611 ਙȡțĲȠȚ
Ĳૅ ਕȖȡȩĲİȡȠȓ Ĳİ ıȣ੻Ȣ ȤĮȡȠʌȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ 71 ʌĮȡįȐȜȚȑȢ Ĳİ șȠĮ੿ ʌȡȠțȐįȦȞ
ਕțȩȡȘĲȠȚ] cf. Il. 13.102–3 Į੆ Ĳİ țĮșૅ ੢ȜȘȞ / șȫȦȞ ʌĮȡįĮȜȓȦȞ Ĳİ ȜȪțȦȞ Ĳૅ ਵȚĮ
ʌȑȜȠȞĲĮȚ 74 cf. Od. 10.479 Ƞੂ ȝ੻Ȟ țȠȚȝȒıĮȞĲȠ țĮĲ੹ ȝȑȖĮȡĮ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ
76 ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȞ ȠੇȠȞ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ ~ 79 ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȢ ȠੇȠȢ ਕʌૅ
ਙȜȜȦȞ ȠੇȠȞ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ * at Od. 9.192 77 ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ ਸ਼ȡȦĮ] cf. Hes. Th. 1009
ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ ਸ਼ȡȦȚ* 79 ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȢ ȠੇȠȢ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ ~ 76 ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ
ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȞ ȠੇȠȞ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ
70 forms of ȤĮȡȠʌȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ * at Od. 11.611; [Hes.] Sc. 177; h. 14.4; cf. Hes.
Th. 321 ȤĮȡȠʌȠ૙Ƞ ȜȑȠȞĲȠȢ* 73 Ƞ੄ įૅ ਚȝĮ ʌȐȞĲİȢ * at Od. 8.121; ਚȝĮ ʌȐȞĲİȢ *
also at Il. 6.59; 8.8; 24.253; Od. 21.230 74 țĮĲ੹ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ * at 124
77 forms of șİ૵Ȟ ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȞĲĮ * at Od. 8.457 șİ૵Ȟ ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ;
Hes. fr. 171.4 [șİ૵Ȟ ਙʌ]Ƞҕ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩[ȤȠȣıĮȞ]; ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȚ alone * at Od.
6.18; Hes. fr. 215.1 ȋĮȡȓĲȦȞ ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ 80 ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿ ਩ȞșĮ * at e.g. Il.
2.779; 21.11; Od. 20.28; Hes. Th. 742; h. 7.39
71 ʌĮȡįȐȜȚȑȢ Ȍ : ʌȠȡįȐȜȚȑȢ BīP 72 ਵȚıĮȞ Ilgen : ਵİıĮȞ Ȍ : ਵİııĮȞ Bī

ĳȡİı੿ ȍ : ĳȡİı੿Ȟ AQ 73 ȕȐȜૅ Ĭ : ȝȐȜૅ p 76 ȠੇȠȞ vel ȠੈȠȞ fLī : ȠੈȠȢ ap
ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ Ȍ : ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚȞ AQ
behind her went gray wolves, tawny lions, 70

bears, and swift wildcats, whose hunger for deer is
insatiable. When she saw them, her heart was pleased in her chest,
and she planted desire in their breasts; they all lay down
together in bed, two by two, in their shadowy lairs.
But she arrived at the well-constructed hut, 75
and found him in the out-buildings, left behind alone by the others—
the hero Anchises, as handsome as a god.
They were all following after the cows in the grassy
meadows, whereas he had been left behind alone in the out-buildings
by the others
and was walking back and forth, playing a high-pitched tune
on his lyre. 80
ıĲો įૅ Į੝ĲȠ૨ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ,

ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ ȝȑȖİșȠȢ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ੒ȝȠȓȘ,
ȝȒ ȝȚȞ ĲĮȡȕȒıİȚİȞ ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ.
ਝȖȤȓıȘȢ įૅ ੒ȡȩȦȞ ਥĳȡȐȗİĲȠ șĮȪȝĮȚȞȑȞ Ĳİ
85 İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ȝȑȖİșȩȢ Ĳİ țĮ੿ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮā
ʌȑʌȜȠȞ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ ਪİıĲȠ ĳĮİȚȞȩĲİȡȠȞ ʌȣȡઁȢ Į੝ȖોȢ,
İੇȤİ įૅ ਥʌȚȖȞĮȝʌĲ੹Ȣ ਪȜȚțĮȢ țȐȜȣțȐȢ Ĳİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ.
੖ȡȝȠȚ įૅ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜોȚ įİȚȡોȚ ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑİȢ ਷ıĮȞ
țĮȜȠ੿ ȤȡȪıİȚȠȚ ʌĮȝʌȠȓțȚȜȠȚā ੪Ȣ į੻ ıİȜȒȞȘ
90 ıĲȒșİıȚȞ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜȠ૙ıȚȞ ਥȜȐȝʌİĲȠ, șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ.
81 ıĲો įૅ … ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ * at Il. 14.297 ıĲો įૅ Į੝ĲોȢ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİȞ

82 ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ ] cf. Od. 6.109, 228 ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ ਕįȝȒȢ / ȝȑȖİșȠȢ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ
* at hDem. 275 83 ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ * at Il. 24.294 = 312
86 ĳĮİȚȞȩĲİȡȠȞ ʌȣȡઁȢ Į੝ȖોȢ * at Il. 18.610 87–8 ~ 163 = Il. 18.401 ʌȩȡʌĮȢ Ĳİ
ȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ șૅ ਪȜȚțĮȢ țȐȜȣțȐȢ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੖ȡȝȠȣȢ 88–90 cf. Il. 3.396–8 țĮȓ ૧ૅ ੪Ȣ Ƞ੣Ȟ
ਥȞȩȘıİ șİ઼Ȣ ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮ įİȚȡ੽Ȟ / ıĲȒșİȐ șૅ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ țĮ੿ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ ȝĮȡȝĮȓȡȠȞĲĮ, /
șȐȝȕȘıİȞ 88 cf. Cypria fr. 6, p. 48 Bernabé collum marmoreum torques gem-
mata coronat 90 șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ] cf. Od. 8.366 ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਪııĮȞ ਥʌȒȡĮĲĮ,
șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ
81 ıĲો įૅ … ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ * also at Il. 24.286 ıĲો įૅ ੆ʌʌȦȞ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİȞ; Od.

15.150 ıĲો įૅ ੆ʌʌȦȞ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ Į੝ĲȠ૨ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ * at Od. 15.122 ǻȚઁȢ
șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ * at 107 = 191; e.g. Il. 3.374; 5.131; 14.193, 224; Od. 8.308;
hAp. 195 ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ Ĳૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ 85 İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ȝȑȖİșȩȢ Ĳİ * at Il. 2.58; Od.
6.152; 11.337; 18.249 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮ * at 164; Il. 22.154 88 forms of
ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȒȢ * at e.g. Il. 3.396; 4.486; Od. 1.425; Hes. fr. 193.11; hAp. 80
89 forms of țĮȜȠ੿ ȤȡȪıİȚȠȚ * at e.g. Il. 18.562; Od. 1.137 = 4.53, etc.; 5.232;
10.545; 24.3; h. 6.8 90 forms of ਥȜȐȝʌİĲȠ * at Il. 22.134; [Hes.] Sc. 72 ਕʌ-
șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ * at Il. 5.725; 10.439; 18.83, 377; Od. 6.306; 7.45; 8.366; 13.108;
Hes. Th. 575, 581; [Hes.] Sc. 140, 224
82 țĮ੿ ĬV : Ĳİ țĮ੿ p 84 șĮȪȝĮȚȞȑȞ fa : șĮȪȝȝĮȚȞȑȞ L : șȐȝȕĮȚȞȑȞ p

89 ȤȡȪıİȚȠȚ Ȍ : ȤȡȪıİȠȚ Bī
Aphrodite the daughter of Zeus stood before him,

looking like a tall and attractive unmarried girl,
to keep him from being frightened when he laid eyes on her.
When Anchises spotted her, he considered her and was stunned by
her looks and height and shining clothes; 85
for she was dressed in a robe brighter than fire-light,
and she wore curved ‘twists’ and ‘flower-buds’ vibrant with color,
and lovely necklaces, beautiful, golden and elaborately worked, were
around her soft neck, and something like moon-light
shown about her soft breasts—an amazing sight. 90
ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ, ਩ʌȠȢ įȑ ȝȚȞ ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮā

“ȤĮ૙ȡİ, ਙȞĮııૅ, ਸ਼ ĲȚȢ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ ĲȐįİ įȫȝĮșૅ ੂțȐȞİȚȢ,
ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ ਲ਼ ȁȘĲઅ ਱੻ ȤȡȣıȑȘ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ
ਲ਼ ĬȑȝȚȢ ਱ȣȖİȞ੽Ȣ ਱੻ ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȢ ਝșȒȞȘ.
95 ਵ ʌȠȪ ĲȚȢ ȋĮȡȓĲȦȞ įİ૨ȡૅ ਵȜȣșİȢ, Į੆ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚ
ʌ઼ıȚȞ ਦĲĮȚȡȓȗȠȣıȚ țĮ੿ ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȚ țĮȜȑȠȞĲĮȚ,
97 ਵ ĲȚȢ ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ, Į੆ Ĳૅ ਙȜıİĮ țĮȜ੹ ȞȑȝȠȞĲĮȚ
99 țĮ੿ ʌȘȖ੹Ȣ ʌȠĲĮȝ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ʌȓıİĮ ʌȠȚȒİȞĲĮ.
100 ıȠ੿ įૅ ਥȖઅ ਥȞ ıțȠʌȚોȚ, ʌİȡȚĳĮȚȞȠȝȑȞȦȚ ਥȞ੿ ȤȫȡȦȚ,
ȕȦȝઁȞ ʌȠȚȒıȦ, ૧ȑȗȦ įȑ ĲȠȚ ੂİȡ੹ țĮȜȐ
੮ȡȘȚıȚȞ ʌȐıȘȚıȚā ıઃ įૅ İ੡ĳȡȠȞĮ șȣȝઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ
įȩȢ ȝİ ȝİĲ੹ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑૅ ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮ,
ʌȠȓİȚ įૅ İੁıȠʌȓıȦ șĮȜİȡઁȞ ȖȩȞȠȞ, Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਩ȝૅ Į੝ĲȩȞ
105 įȘȡઁȞ ਩ȣ ȗȫİȚȞ țĮ੿ ੒ȡ઼Ȟ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ
91–106 cf. Od. 6.149–85 91 ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ * at 144 ਩ʌȠȢ įȑ ȝȚȞ
ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ] cf. Il. 5.170 ıĲો į੻ ʌȡȩıșૅ Į੝ĲȠ૙Ƞ, ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳȑ ȝȚȞ ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ 92 cf.
Od. 6.149 ȖȠȣȞȠ૨ȝĮȓ ıİ, ਙȞĮııĮā șİȩȢ ȞȪ ĲȚȢ ਷ ȕȡȠĲȩȢ ਥııȚ; 96 țĮ੿ ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȚ
țĮȜȑȠȞĲĮȚ * at Il. 5.342 97 ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ–99 ~ Il. 20.8–9 103 cf. Il. 6.476–7
įȩĲİ į੽ țĮ੿ ĲȩȞįİ ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ / ʌĮ૙įૅ ਥȝȩȞ, ੪Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥȖȫ ʌİȡ, ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑĮ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ
105 ~ Od. 10.498 ਵșİȜૅ ਩ĲȚ ȗȫİȚȞ țĮ੿ ੒ȡ઼Ȟ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ
91 ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ * also at e.g. Il. 3.203; 5.647; Od. 1.345, 399; hDem. 405; hAp. 463
93 forms of Ȥȡȣıો ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ * at Il. 22.470; 24.699; Od. 8.337, 342; 17.37 = 19.54
94 ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȢ ਝșȒȞȘ * at 8 -ȚȞ -ȘȞ (where see apparatus) 100 ਥȞ ıțȠʌȚોȚ * at Il.
5.771 ਥȞ੿ Ȥ૵ȡȦȚ * at e.g. Il. 3.344; Od. 1.426; 7.123; 13.228; Il.parv. fr. 23, p.
82 Bernabé 102 forms of șȣȝઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ * at Il. 16.355; Od. 11.39; 22.15;
23.97; Hes. Th. 61, 239; hDem. 361, 434; h. 24.4 103 ȝİĲ੹ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ * at Il.
5.86, 834 ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮ cf. Od. 18.261 ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮȢ* 105 ȗȫİȚȞ țĮ੿
੒ȡ઼Ȟ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ * at Il. 24.558; Od. 4.540 = 10.498; ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ alone * at 256
(where see apparatus), 272
92 ȤĮ૙ȡİ Ȍ : ȤĮ૙ȡૅ a 93 ȤȡȣıȑȘ Barnes : Ȥȡȣıો Ȍ 97 vers. om. a 98 ਲ਼

Ȟȣȝĳ૵Ȟ Į੄ țĮȜઁȞ ੕ȡȠȢ Ĳȩįİ ȞĮȚİĲȐȠȣıȚ Ȍ : vers. del. Ruhnken 99 ʌȓıİĮ
Ruhnken : ʌİȓıİĮ (ȕs) L : ȕȒıİĮ Ȍ 102 ੮ȡૉıȚȞ Ĭ : ੮ȡૉıȚ p 104 İੁıȠʌȓıȦ
Ȍ : İੁıȠʌİȓıȦ AQ
Anchises was seized by lust, and standing face-to-face to her

he made a speech:
‘Greetings, majesty, whichever of the blessed ones you are
who have come to my house,
whether Artemis, or Leto, or golden Aphrodite,
or well-born Themis, or gleaming-eyed Athena;
or perhaps you are one of the Graces come here, who keep company 95
with all the gods and are referred to as immortal;
or one of the nymphs who inhabit the lovely groves 97
and the rivers’ springs and the swamp-lands full of grass. 99
I will build you an altar on a high spot, in a 100
prominent place, and I will make fine offerings to you
throughout the year. But as for you—be kind to me,
and grant that I be a prominent man among the Trojans!
Make my descendants flourish in the future, and make me personally
live a long, happy life, and see the sunlight as a man 105
੕ȜȕȚȠȞ ਥȞ ȜĮȠ૙Ȣ țĮ੿ ȖȒȡĮȠȢ Ƞ੝įઁȞ ੂțȑıșĮȚ.”

ĲઁȞ įૅ ਱ȝİȓȕİĲૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘā
“ਝȖȤȓıȘ, țȪįȚıĲİ ȤĮȝĮȚȖİȞȑȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ,
Ƞ੡ ĲȓȢ ĲȠȚ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚā Ĳȓ ȝૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚȞ ਥȓıțİȚȢ;
110 ਕȜȜ੹ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȒ Ȗİ, ȖȣȞ੽ įȑ ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ.
ૅȅĲȡİઃȢ įૅ ਥıĲ੿ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȢ, İ੅ ʌȠȣ ਕțȠȪİȚȢ,
੔Ȣ ʌȐıȘȢ ĭȡȣȖȓȘȢ İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲȠȚȠ ਕȞȐııİȚ.
ȖȜ૵ııĮȞ įૅ ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ ‫ۃ‬Ĳİ‫ ۄ‬țĮ੿ ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ ıȐĳĮ ȠੇįĮā
ȉȡȦȚ੹Ȣ Ȗ੹ȡ ȝİȖȐȡȦȚ ȝİ ĲȡȠĳઁȢ ĲȡȑĳİȞ ਱į੻ įȚȐʌȡȠ
115 ıȝȚțȡ੽Ȟ ʌĮ૙įૅ ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİ ĳȓȜȘȢ ʌĮȡ੹ ȝȘĲȡઁȢ ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ
੬Ȣ įȒ ĲȠȚ ȖȜ૵ııȐȞ Ȗİ țĮ੿ ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ İ੣ ȠੇįĮ.
Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ ȝૅ ਕȞȒȡʌĮȟİ ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ
ਥț ȤȠȡȠ૨ ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȠȢ ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ țİȜĮįİȚȞોȢ.
ʌȠȜȜĮ੿ į੻ ȞȪȝĳĮȚ țĮ੿ ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȚ ਕȜĳİıȓȕȠȚĮȚ
106 țĮ੿ ȖȒȡĮȠȢ Ƞ੝įઁȞ ੂțȑıșĮȚ * at Od. 23.212 107–8 ~ 191–2 107 ~ Il.
14.193 Ĳ੽Ȟ įૅ țĲȜ. 109 ~ Od. 16.187 Ƞ੡ ĲȓȢ ĲȠȚ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚā Ĳȓ ȝૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ
ਥȓıțİȚȢ; 110–11 ~ 145–6 110 ȖȣȞ੽ įȑ ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ ~ Il. 21.109 șİ੹ įȑ
ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ* 111–12 ૅȅĲȡİઃȢ … / ੔Ȣ ʌȐıȘȢ ĭȡȣȖȓȘȢ … ਕȞȐııİȚ] cf. Il.
3.185–6 ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ਕȞȑȡĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ, / ȜĮȠઃȢ ૅȅĲȡોȠȢ țĮ੿ ȂȣȖįȩȞȠȢ ਕȞĲȚșȑȠȚȠ
111 ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȢ] cf. Il. 22.51 İ੅ ʌȠȣ ਕțȠȪİȚȢ * at Od. 15.403 113 ~ 116
116 ~ 113 118 ~ Il. 16.183 ਥȞ ȤȠȡ૵Ț ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȠȢ ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ țİȜĮįİȚȞોȢ
119 țĮ੿ ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȚ ਕȜĳİıȓȕȠȚĮȚ * at Il. 18.593
107 ĲઁȞ įૅ ਱ȝİȓȕİĲૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ * at e.g. Il. 1.121, 172; 16.439; Od. 1.44; 3.210; 17.280
ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ * also at 81 (where see apparatus) 108 ȤĮȝĮȚȖİȞȑȦȞ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at Hes. Th. 879; hDem. 352 117 forms of ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ
ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ * at 121; Od. 10.331; hDem. 335 118 forms of ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȠȢ
ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ țİȜĮįİȚȞોȢ * also at 16 -Į -ȠȞ -ȒȞ; Hes. fr. 23a.18 (conjectural)
108 ਝȖȤȓıȘ Ȍ : ਝȖȤȓıĲȘ a 110 Ȗİ Gemoll : Ĳİ Ȍ 112 İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲȠȚȠ Ȍ :

İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲİȚȠ Bī 113 ‫ۦ‬Ĳİۧ add. Wolf ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ … ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ Ȍ : ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ …
ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ a 114 ȉȡȦȚ੹Ȣ M : ȉȡȦઁȢ Ȍ 116 Ȗİ Hermann : Ĳİ ȍ ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȞ ȍ
: ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ AQ 117 ȝૅ om. M 118 ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ Mf : ȤȡȣıȘȜȐĲȠȣ xp
țİȜĮįİȓȞȘȢ Ȍ : țİȜĮįȪȞȘȢ M
blessed among his people, and reach the threshold of old age!’
Aphrodite the daughter of Zeus then answered him:
“Anchises, most distinguished of humans born upon the earth—
I am no god, I assure you; why do you compare me to the immortal
goddesses?
I am a mortal, and the mother who gave birth to me was a woman. 110
My father is the famous Otreus—perhaps you have heard of him—
who is the king of all of well-walled Phrygia.
I am quite familiar with your language as well as ours;
for a Trojan nurse brought me up in our home and took care of me
constantly after she got me, as a tiny child, from my beloved mother. 115
And so, you see, I am well-acquainted with your language too.
But now Argeiphontes of the gold staff abducted me
from a chorus in honor of Artemis of the gold arrow-shafts and
loud cries.
We were dancing, a large group of recent brides and girls whose
dowry
120 ʌĮȓȗȠȝİȞ, ਕȝĳ੿ įૅ ੖ȝȚȜȠȢ ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ ਥıĲİĳȐȞȦĲȠ.

਩ȞșİȞ ȝૅ ਸ਼ȡʌĮȟİ ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ,
ʌȠȜȜ੹ įૅ ਩ʌૅ ਵȖĮȖİȞ ਩ȡȖĮ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ,
ʌȠȜȜ੽Ȟ įૅ ਙțȜȘȡȩȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ, ਴Ȟ įȚ੹ șોȡİȢ
੩ȝȠĳȐȖȠȚ ĳȠȚĲ૵ıȚ țĮĲ੹ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢā
125 Ƞ੝į੻ ʌȠı੿ ȥĮȪıİȚȞ įȩțİȠȞ ĳȣıȚȗȩȠȣ Į੅ȘȢ.
ਝȖȤȓıİȦ įȑ ȝİ ĳȐıțİ ʌĮȡĮ੿ ȜȑȤİıȚȞ țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ
țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ, ıȠ੿ įૅ ਕȖȜĮ੹ ĲȑțȞĮ Ĳİțİ૙ıșĮȚ.
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ įİ૙ȟİ țĮ੿ ਩ĳȡĮıİȞ, ਵĲȠȚ ੖ Ȗૅ Į੣ĲȚȢ
ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȝİĲ੹ ĳ૨Ȝૅ ਕʌȑȕȘ țȡĮĲઃȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢā
130 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖȫ ıૅ ੂțȩȝȘȞ, țȡĮĲİȡ੽ įȑ ȝȠȚ ਩ʌȜİĲૅ ਕȞȐȖțȘ.
126–7 cf. Il. 19.297–8 ਕȜȜȐ ȝૅ ਩ĳĮıțİȢ ਝȤȚȜȜોȠȢ șİȓȠȚȠ / țȠȣȡȓįȚȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ
șȒıİȚȞ 126 ʌĮȡĮ੿ ȜȑȤİıȚȞ] cf. Od. 1.366 = 18.213 ʌĮȡĮ੿ ȜİȤȑİııȚ țȜȚșોȞĮȚ
128 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ įİ૙ȟİ] cf. Od. 5.241 / Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ įİ૙ȟૅ 129 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȝİĲ੹
ĳ૨Ȝૅ] cf. Hes. Op. 199 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȝİĲ੹ ĳ૨ȜȠȞ ੅ĲȠȞ ʌȡȠȜȚʌȩȞĲૅ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ
ਕʌȑȕȘ țȡĮĲઃȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ * at Od. 5.148 130 ~ Od. 10.273 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅ İੇȝȚā
țȡĮĲİȡ੽ įȑ ȝȠȚ ਩ʌȜİĲૅ ਕȞȐȖțȘ
120 ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ ਥıĲİĳȐȞȦĲȠ * at [Hes.] Sc. 204; cf. Od. 10.195 ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ
ਥıĲİĳȐȞȦĲĮȚ*; ਥıĲİĳȐȞȦĲȠ alone * also at Il. 11.36; 15.153 121 ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ
ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ * at 117 (where see apparatus) 122 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at 3
(where see apparatus), 192, 200, 281 124 țĮĲ੹ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ * at 74
125 forms of ĳȣıȚȗȩȠȣ Į੅ȘȢ * at Il. 3.243; Od. 11.301 126 ʌĮȡĮ੿ ȜȑȤİıȚȞ
țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ * at Hes. fr. 22.9 [ʌĮȡĮ੿ Ȝ]ȑȤİıȚȞ țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ; țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ alone * also at
Od. 7.313 ਥȝઁȢ ȖĮȝȕȡઁȢ țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ; Hes. Op. 715 127 forms of țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ
ਙȜȠȤȠȞ * also at Il. 1.114; 7.392; Od. 14.245 ਕȖȜĮ੹ ĲȑțȞĮ Ĳİțİ૙ıșĮȚ] cf. Hes.
fr. 31.4 ਕȖȜĮ੹ ĲȑțȞĮ Ĳ[İț …]* 128 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ įȒ alone * also at 215; e.g. Il.
4.124; Od. 5.76; Hes. Th. 585; hAp. 127; hHerm. 356 129 țȡĮĲઃȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ
* also at Il. 16.181; 24.345 = Od. 5.49; hDem. 346, 377; hHerm. 294, 414
130 țȡĮĲİȡ੽ … ਕȞȐȖțȘ * also at Il. 6.458
120 ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ Ȍ : ਕʌİȓȡȘĲȠȢ M 121 ਸ਼ȡʌĮȟİ ȍ : ਸ਼ȡʌĮȟİȞ BīVP

123 ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ MDTsL : ਙțĲȚıĲȠȞ Ata : ਙĲȚțĲȠȞ p 125 ȥĮȪıİȚȞ M : ȥĮȪİȚȞ Ȍ
įȩțİȠȞ La Roche : ਥįȩțȠȣȞ ȍ ĳȣıȚȗȩȠȣ L : ĳȣıȚȗȫȠȣ ȍ 126 ȜȑȤİıȚȞ ȍ :
ȜȑȤİıȚ aī
will consist of many oxen, and a crowd beyond counting

surrounded us. 120
Argeiphontes of the gold staff snatched me away from there
and took me over many cultivated fields belonging to human mortals,
and over much undivided and unsettled land, which
wild beasts that eat raw flesh in their shadowy lairs pass through—
I thought my feet would never touch the life-giving earth again!— 125
and he said that I would be called Anchises’ wedded wife
and share his bed, and that I would bear you fine children.
After pointing you out and explaining the situation, powerful
Argeiphontes
went off again to join the tribes of the immortals,
whereas I made my way to you, and I have no choice in the matter. 130
ਕȜȜȐ ıİ ʌȡઁȢ ǽȘȞઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ ਱į੻ ĲȠțȒȦȞ

ਥıșȜ૵Ȟā Ƞ੝ ȝ੻Ȟ ȖȐȡ țİ țĮțȠ੿ ĲȠȚȩȞįİ ĲȑțȠȚİȞā
ਕįȝȒĲȘȞ ȝૅ ਕȖĮȖઅȞ țĮ੿ ਕʌİȚȡȒĲȘȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȠȢ
ʌĮĲȡȓ Ĳİ ı૵Ț įİ૙ȟȠȞ țĮ੿ ȝȘĲȑȡȚ țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣȓȘȚ
135 ıȠ૙Ȣ Ĳİ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȢ, Ƞ੆ ĲȠȚ ੒ȝȩșİȞ ȖİȖȐĮıȚȞ.
Ƞ੡ ıĳȚȞ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȞȣઁȢ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ, ਕȜȜૅ İੁțȣ૙Į.
ʌȑȝȥĮȚ įૅ ਙȖȖİȜȠȞ ੯țĮ ȝİĲ੹ ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ
İੁʌİ૙Ȟ ʌĮĲȡȓ Ĳૅ ਥȝ૵Ț țĮ੿ ȝȘĲȑȡȚ țȘįȠȝȑȞȘȚ ʌİȡā
Ƞ੄ įȑ țȑ ‫ۃ‬ĲȠȚ‫ ۄ‬ȤȡȣıȩȞ Ĳİ ਚȜȚȢ ਥıșોĲȐ șૅ ਫ਼ĳĮȞĲȒȞ
140 ʌȑȝȥȠȣıȚȞ, ıઃ į੻ ʌȠȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ਕȖȜĮ੹ įȑȤșĮȚ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ.
131 ~ 187; cf. Od. 13.324 / Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ ıİ ʌȡઁȢ ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ, Il. 3.140 ਱į੻
ĲȠțȒȦȞ* 132 ~ Od. 4.64 ıțȘʌĲȠȪȤȦȞ, ਥʌİ੿ Ƞ੡ țİ țĮțȠ੿ ĲȠȚȠȪıįİ ĲȑțȠȚİȞ
137 ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ] cf. Il. 3.185 ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ਕȞȑȡĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ / 139 ~ Od.
13.136 = 16.231 ȤĮȜțȩȞ Ĳİ ȤȡȣıȩȞ Ĳİ ਚȜȚȢ ਥıșોĲȐ șૅ ਫ਼ĳĮȞĲȒȞ (cf. 5.38)
140 ਕȖȜĮ੹ įȑȤșĮȚ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ * at Il. 1.23, 377
131 ਱į੻ ĲȠțȒȦȞ * also at Il. 15.663; Od. 15.382 137 ਙȖȖİȜȠȞ ੯țĮ * at Od.
24.413 ਙȖȖİȜȠȢ ੯țĮ 138 forms of țȘįȠȝȑȞȘȚ ʌİȡ * at Il. 1.586; 5.382; 7.110;
18.273; 24.104; Od. 3.240; 7.215; 18.178; 19.511
132 Ƞ੝ ȝ੻Ȟ ȖȐȡ țİ Ȃ : Ƞ੝ ȖȐȡ Ĳİ Ȍ : Ƞ੝ ȖȐȡ ĲȠȚ V 134 țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣȓȘȚ scripsi :
țȑįȞૅ İੁįȣȓȘȚ MfaP : țȑįȞૅ İੁįȪȘȚ L : țȑįȞૅ İੁįİȓȘȚ p 135 ıȠ૙Ȣ Ĳİ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȢ Ȍ :
įȠȚȫ Ĳİ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȦ M ȖİȖȐĮıȚȞ MfQ : ȖİȖȐĮııȚȞ xp 136 ȞȣઁȢ Ĭ : ȞȘઁȢ M :
om. p post 136 İ੅ ĲȠȚ (ĲȚ f) ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȖȣȞ੽ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ (਩ıȠȝĮȚ Mf) ਱੻ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝țȓ prae-
bunt MĬ : 136 et 136a in unum Ƞ੡ ıĳȚȞ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȖȣȞ੽ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਱੻ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝Ȥ੿ p
137 ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ Ȍ : ĮੁȠȜȠʌȩȜȠȣȢ M 139 Ƞ੄ įȑ țȑ ‫ۃ‬ĲȠȚ‫ ۄ‬ȤȡȣıȩȞ Ĳİ Matthiae :
Ƞੂ įȑ țİ ȤȡȣıȩȞ Ĳİ M : Ƞੂ įȑ Ĳİ ȤȡȣıȩȞ țİȞ Ȍ : Ƞ੝įȑ Ĳİ ȤȡȣıȩȞ țİȞ AQ
140 ʌȑȝȥȠȣıȚȞ ĬAQ : ʌȑȝȥȠȣıȚ Mp
I beg you, by Zeus and your distinguished

parents—for base individuals could never produce
a child like you—
take me, unmastered and inexperienced in love-making,
and show me to your father and your devoted mother,
and to your brothers who descend from the same source. 135
I will be an acceptable daughter-in-law for them, not unacceptable.
And quickly send a messenger to the Phrygians with
their rapid steeds,
and inform my father and my mother, upset though she may be.
They will send you sufficient gold and woven clothing,
and you must accept their many lavish gifts. 140
ĲĮ૨ĲĮ į੻ ʌȠȚȒıĮȢ įĮȓȞȣ ȖȐȝȠȞ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ

ĲȓȝȚȠȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚ țĮ੿ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ.”
੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ șİ੹ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț.
ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ, ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞā
145 “İੁ ȝ੻Ȟ șȞȘĲȒ Ȗૅ ਥııȓ, ȖȣȞ੽ įȑ ıİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ,
ૅȅĲȡİઃȢ įૅ ਥıĲ੿ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȢ, ੪Ȣ ਕȖȠȡİȪİȚȢ,
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ ਥȞșȐįૅ ੂțȐȞİȚȢ
૽ǼȡȝȑȦ, ਥȝ੽ įૅ ਙȜȠȤȠȢ țİțȜȒıİĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ,
Ƞ੡ ĲȚȢ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ șİ૵Ȟ Ƞ੡Ĳİ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
150 ਥȞșȐįİ ȝİ ıȤȒıİȚ ʌȡ੿Ȟ ıોȚ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ȝȚȖોȞĮȚ
Į੝ĲȓțĮ Ȟ૨Ȟ, Ƞ੝įૅ İ੅ țİȞ ਦțȘȕȩȜȠȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ
ĲȩȟȠȣ ਙʌૅ ਕȡȖȣȡȑȠȣ ʌȡȠȧોȚ ȕȑȜİĮ ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮā
ȕȠȣȜȠȓȝȘȞ țİȞ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ, ȖȪȞĮȚ İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚ,
ıોȢ İ੝ȞોȢ ਥʌȚȕ੹Ȣ į૨ȞĮȚ įȩȝȠȞ ਡȧįȠȢ İ੅ıȦ.”
143 = Il. 3.139; cf. 45, 53 ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț* 144 ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ
İੈȜİȞ * at 91 145–6 ~ 110–11 (where see apparatus) 147–8 ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ į੻
ਪțȘĲȚ įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ … / ૽ǼȡȝȑȦ] cf. Od. 15.319 / ૽ǼȡȝİȓĮȠ ਪțȘĲȚ įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ
148 țİțȜȒıİĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ * at hHerm. 292 149 cf. Il. 1.547–8 Ƞ੡ ĲȚȢ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ /
Ƞ੡Ĳİ șİ૵Ȟ ʌȡȩĲİȡȠȢ ĲȩȞ Ȗૅ İ੅ıİĲĮȚ Ƞ੡Ĳૅ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
142 ĲȓȝȚȠȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚ] cf. Hes. fr. 240.7 / ĲȓȝȚȠȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ[ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚ țĮ੿
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚ * at Hes. Th. 204, 407 (cf. 296); hHerm. 161 143 ȖȜȣțઃȞ
੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț * also at 45 (where see apparatus), 53 144 ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ
਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ * at 176; e.g. Il. 1.361; 3.398; 5.372; 7.108; Od. 2.302; 3.374;
21.287; 23.96 146 ੪Ȣ ਕȖȠȡİȪİȚȢ * at Il. 9.41; 17.180; 24.373; Od. 4.157; 13.147;
14.116; 15.155; 19.217; 23.36, 62; 24.122, 512 147 forms of įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ * also at
213 (where see apparatus); Od. 12.390; 15.319 / ૽ǼȡȝİȓĮȠ ਪțȘĲȚ įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ
forms of ਥȞșȐįૅ ੂțȐȞİȚȢ * at Il. 13.449; Od. 6.206; 7.24; 11.160; 15.492; 16.31;
hHerm. 191, 262 148 ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ * also at 209, 221, 240; e.g. Il. 8.539; 12.133;
14.276; Od. 2.55; 4.209; Hes. Th. 305; hDem. 267; hAp. 485 149 șİ૵Ȟ Ƞ੡Ĳİ
șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at Il. 18.404; Od. 7.247; hDem. 45; Ƞ੡Ĳİ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
alone * also at 35 (where see apparatus)
141 įĮȓȞȣ vel įĮ૙Ȟȣ Maī : įĮȓȞȞȣ fLp 144 ਩ȡȠȢ MpcĬ : ਩ȡȦȢ Macp 145 Ȗૅ
Wolf : Ĳૅ ȍ įȑ ȍ : Ĳİ x 146 ਕȖȠȡİȪİȚȢ ȍ : ਕȖȠȡȐȗİȚȢ p 147 ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ M :
ਕșĮȞĮĲȠ૙Ƞ Ȍ į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ Hermann : įૅ ਪțȘĲȚ Ȍ : įૅ ਪțĮĲȚ MP 148 ૽ǼȡȝȑȦ Ȍ :
૽ǼȡȝĮȓȦ M
After you do all this, offer a lovely wedding-feast

that brings you honor among human beings and immortal gods.’
With these words the goddess implanted sweet desire in his heart.
Anchises was overcome by lust, and he spoke a word
and called her by name:
‘If you are mortal; and the mother who bore you was a woman; 145
and your father is the famous Otreus, as you claim;
and you came here by the will of the immortal conductor
Hermes; and you are going to be called my wife your whole life—
in that case, no god or mortal human
will prevent me from sleeping with you immediately 150
here and now, not even if Apollo the far-shooter himself
were to direct groan-inspiring missiles at me from his silver bow!
Even then, lady who looks like a goddess, I would be willing
to go down into the house of Hades after I got in bed with you.’
150 ੬Ȣ İੁʌઅȞ ȜȐȕİ Ȥİ૙ȡĮā ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ įૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ

ਪȡʌİ ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ, țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ,
ਥȢ ȜȑȤȠȢ İ੡ıĲȡȦĲȠȞ, ੖șȚ ʌİȡ ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ ਙȞĮțĲȚ
ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚ ȝĮȜĮțોȚȢ ਥıĲȡȦȝȑȞȠȞ. Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ੢ʌİȡșİȞ
ਙȡțĲȦȞ įȑȡȝĮĲૅ ਩țİȚĲȠ ȕĮȡȣĳșȩȖȖȦȞ Ĳİ ȜİȩȞĲȦȞ,
160 ĲȠઃȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ țĮĲȑʌİĳȞİȞ ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ.
Ƞ੄ įૅ ਥʌİ੿ Ƞ੣Ȟ ȜİȤȑȦȞ İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȦȞ ਥʌȑȕȘıĮȞ,
țȩıȝȠȞ ȝȑȞ Ƞੂ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ਕʌઁ ȤȡȠઁȢ İੈȜİ ĳĮİȚȞȩȞ,
ʌȩȡʌĮȢ Ĳİ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ șૅ ਪȜȚțĮȢ țȐȜȣțȐȢ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੖ȡȝȠȣȢ,
Ȝ૨ıİ įȑ Ƞੂ ȗȫȞȘȞ, ੁį੻ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮ
156 țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ * at hDem. 194; cf. Verg. Aen. 11.480 oculos
deiecta decoros 157 ਩Ȣ ȜȑȤȠȢ İ੡ıĲȡȦĲȠȞ] cf. hDem. 285 ਕʌૅ İ੝ıĲȡȫĲȦȞ
ȜİȤȑȦȞ 160 ~ Od. 11.574 ĲȠઃȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ țĮĲȑʌİĳȞİȞ ਥȞ ȠੁȠʌȩȜȠȚıȚȞ ੕ȡİııȚ
163 = Il. 18.401; cf. 87–8 164 Ȝ૨ıİ įȑ Ƞੂ ȗȫȞȘȞ] cf. Od. 11.245 / Ȝ૨ıİ į੻
ʌĮȡșİȞȓȘȞ ȗȫȞȘȞ
150 ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ȝȚȖોȞĮȚ * at h. 19.34 151 Į੝ĲȓțĮ Ȟ૨Ȟ * at Od. 5.205; 9.356;
18.203; 20.63 Į੝ĲઁȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ * at Il. 17.322; hHerm. 234 ਦțĮĲȒȕȩȜȠȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ
ਝʌȩȜȜȦ / 152 ȕȑȜİĮ ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ * at Il. 17.374; Hes. Th. 684 153 ȖȪȞĮȚ
İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚ * at Il. 11.638 ȖȣȞ੽ İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚȞ; 19.286 ȖȣȞ੽ İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚȞ;
İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚȞ alone * also at Il. 8.305; Od. 7.291; Hes. fr. 185.23 [İੁț]ȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚȞ
154 į૨ȞĮȚ įȩȝȠȞ ਡȚįȠȢ İ੅ıȦ * at Il. 3.322; 7.131 155 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ įૅ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ] cf. 17 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ / with apparatus 156 ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ *
also at Od. 1.208 157 ੖șȚ ʌİȡ ʌȐȡȠȢ * at Od. 4.627 = 17.169 158 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ
੢ʌİȡșİȞ * at e.g. Il. 2.218; 5.724; 7.101; Od. 20.2; 24.230; Hes. Th. 727; hAp. 283
160 ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ * at 266; ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ alone * also at Il. 4.455; 11.479 -Ț;
24.614; h.20.4 161 Ƞ੄ įૅ ਥʌİ੿ Ƞ੣Ȟ * at e.g. Il. 1.57; 3.340; 4.382; 5.573; Od.
8.372; 16.478; 21.273 164 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮ * at 85 (where see apparatus)
152 ʌȡȠ૘Ș (sic) ȍ : ʌȡȠ૘ȠȚ p 154 į૨ȞĮȚ ȍ : įȠ૨ȞĮȚ a 155 ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ bp :

ĳȚȜȠȝİȚį੽Ȣ Mfaī 156 ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ ȍ : ȝİĲĮıĲȡĮĳșİ૙ıĮ (sed İs) a
ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ om M 157 ȜȑȤȠȢ Ȍ : ȜȑȤȠȞ M ਙȞĮțĲȚ Ȍ : Į੝ĲȒ M 158 ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚ
ȝĮȜĮțોȚȢ p : ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚȞ ȝĮȜĮțોȚȢ Ĭ : ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚȞ ȝĮȜĮțોıȚ (sic) E : įȓȞȘȚıȚ
ȝĮȜĮțોȚıȚȞ M 159 ਙȡțĲȦȞ Ȍ : ਥț Ĳ૵Ȟ M 160 ਥȞ om. AQ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ȍ :
੕ȡİıȚȞ f
With those words he took her hand. And smile-loving Aphrodite 155
turned about, casting her lovely eyes downward, and made her way
to the well-spread bed, which even before this had been covered
with soft blankets for the lord; and on top of these
lay skins of bears and of loud-roaring lions
that he personally killed in the high mountains. 160
When they got into the well-constructed bed, then,
he began by removing the shining jewelry from her skin,
the clasps, curved ‘twists’, ‘flower-buds’, and necklaces;
and he removed her waist-wrapper, and stripped off
165 ਩țįȣİ țĮ੿ țĮĲȑșȘțİȞ ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȣ ਕȡȖȣȡȠȒȜȠȣ

ਝȖȤȓıȘȢā ੔ įૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ șİ૵Ȟ ੁȩĲȘĲȚ țĮ੿ Į੅ıȘȚ
ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚ ʌĮȡȑȜİțĲȠ șİ઼Ț ȕȡȠĲȩȢ, Ƞ੝ ıȐĳĮ İੁįȫȢ.
਷ȝȠȢ įૅ ਗȥ İੁȢ Į੣ȜȚȞ ਕʌȠțȜȓȞȠȣıȚ ȞȠȝોİȢ
ȕȠ૨Ȣ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੅ĳȚĮ ȝોȜĮ ȞȠȝ૵Ȟ ਧȟ ਕȞșİȝȠȑȞĲȦȞ,
170 ĲોȝȠȢ ਙȡૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ਩Ȥİȣİ
ȞȒįȣȝȠȞ, Į੝Ĳ੽ į੻ ȤȡȠ૗ ਩ȞȞȣĲȠ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ.
ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ į૙Į șİȐȦȞ
਩ıĲȘ ਙȡĮ țȜȚıȓȘȚā İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣ ‫ۃ‬į੻‫ ۄ‬ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ
ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ, țȐȜȜȠȢ į੻ ʌĮȡİȚȐȦȞ ਕʌȑȜĮȝʌİȞ
175 ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ, ȠੈȩȞ Ĳૅ ਥıĲ੿Ȟ ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ.
ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ Ĳૅ ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİȞ, ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞā
“੕ȡıİȠ, ǻĮȡįĮȞȓįȘā Ĳȓ Ȟȣ ȞȒȖȡİĲȠȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ੁĮȪİȚȢ;
țĮ੿ ĳȡȐıĮȚ, İ੅ ĲȠȚ ੒ȝȠȓȘ ਥȖઅȞ ੁȞįȐȜȜȠȝĮȚ İੇȞĮȚ,
Ƞ੆ȘȞ įȒ ȝİ Ĳઁ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȩȘıĮȢ.”
170 ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ਩Ȥİȣİ * at Od. 2.395; but cf. Il. 14.352–3 171–2 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ
țĮȜȐ. / ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠȓ] cf. 64 with apparatus 173–4 ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ /
ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ * at hDem. 188–9 175 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ * at h. 6.18
176 ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ Ĳૅ ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİȞ * at Il. 10.138 ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİ 177 ~ Il. 10.159
਩ȖȡİȠ, ȉȣįȑȠȢ ȣੂȑā Ĳȓ ʌȐȞȞȣȤȠȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ਕȦĲİ૙Ȣ;; cf. Il. 18.170 / ੕ȡıİȠ, ȆȘȜİȓįȘ
ȞȒȖȡİĲȠȞ] cf. Od. 13.74, 80 179 ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȩȘıĮȢ * at Il. 24.294 = 312
165 ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȣ ਕȡȖȣȡȠȒȜȠȣ * at Il. 18.389; Od. 7.162; 10.314, 366; ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȣ
alone * also at Od. 20.96 țĮĲȑșȘțİȞ ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȣ 169 ੅ĳȚĮ ȝોȜĮ * at Il. 9.466 =
23.166 forms of ਕȞșİȝȠȑȞĲȦȞ * at Il. 2.467, 695; 23.885; Od. 12.159; 24.275;
Hes. Th. 878; fr. 405.1 170 ĲોȝȠȢ ਙȡૅ * at Il. 7.434; 24.789; Od. 4.401; Hes.
Op. 422; fr. 60.1 ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ਩Ȥİȣİ * also at Od. 18.188 171 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ *
at 64 (where see apparatus) 172 į૙Į șİȐȦȞ * at 28 (where see apparatus)
176 ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ * at 144 (where see apparatus) 179 ਥȞ
ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȩȘıĮȢ * at 83 ȞȠȒıĮȢ (where see first apparatus)
164 Ȝ૨ıİ Ma : Ȝ૨ııİ fbp ੁį੻ Ȍ : ਱įૅ M 169 ਕȞșİȝȠȑȞĲȦȞ ȍ : ਕȞșİȝȠȪȞĲȦȞ p

173 İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣ ‫ۃ‬į੻‫ ۄ‬Ruhnken : İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȚȠ vel İ੣ ʌȠȚȘĲȠ૙Ƞ ȍ 174 ț૨ȡİ M : ȕȪȡİ
a : Ș੝ȡİ vel Ș੣ȡİ bp : ਸȡİ vel ਸ਼ȡİ f 175 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ Ȃ : ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ Ȍ
178 ĲȠȚ M : ĲȚ Ȍ ਥȖઅȞ Ȍ : ਙȖȦȞ M ੁȞįȐȜȜȠȝĮȚ ȂĬ : ੁȞįȐȜȠȝĮȚ p 179 Ƞ੆ȘȞ
Ȍ : Ƞ੅țȠȚ M
her shining clothing and set it on a chair that had silver nails, 165
Anchises did. And then—by the will of the gods and by fate,
not understanding the situation clearly—he lay down,
although mortal, beside an immortal goddess.
At the time when herdsmen turn their cows and fine sheep
back to the farmyard out of the blossom-filled pastures,
at that point she poured sweet, painless sleep 170
over Anchises, and she herself put her lovely clothes about her skin.
And after she carefully placed all her garments about her skin,
she stood,
brilliant among goddesses, in the hut; her head touched
the well-made roof-beam, and immortal beauty
of the sort particular to violet-crowned Cytherea shone
from her cheeks. 175
She roused him from sleep, and spoke a word and called
him by name:
‘Wake up, descendant of Dardanus! Why are you sleeping
so soundly now?
Tell me if I look the same to you
as when you first observed me with your eyes!’
180 ੮Ȣ ĳȐșૅā ੔ įૅ ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȚȠ ȝȐȜૅ ਥȝȝĮʌȑȦȢ ਫ਼ʌȐțȠȣıİȞ.

੪Ȣ į੻ ੅įİȞ įİȚȡȒȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țȐȜૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ,
ĲȐȡȕȘıȑȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੕ııİ ʌĮȡĮțȜȚįઁȞ ਩ĲȡĮʌİȞ ਙȜȜȘȚ.
ਗȥ įૅ Į੣ĲȚȢ ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ țĮȜ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ
țĮȓ ȝȚȞ ȜȚııȩȝİȞȠȢ ਩ʌİĮ ʌĲİȡȩİȞĲĮ ʌȡȠıȘȪįĮā
185 “Į੝ĲȓțĮ ıૅ ੪Ȣ Ĳ੹ ʌȡ૵ĲĮ, șİȐ, ੅įȠȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ,
਩ȖȞȦȞ ੪Ȣ șİઁȢ ਷ıșĮā ıઃ įૅ Ƞ੝ ȞȘȝİȡĲ੻Ȣ ਩İȚʌİȢ.
ਕȜȜȐ ıİ ʌȡઁȢ ǽȘȞઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ,
ȝȒ ȝİ ȗ૵ȞĲૅ ਕȝİȞȘȞઁȞ ਥȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚȞ ਥȐıȘȚȢ
ȞĮȓİȚȞ, ਕȜȜૅ ਥȜȑĮȚȡૅā ਥʌİ੿ Ƞ੝ ȕȚȠșȐȜȝȚȠȢ ਕȞȒȡ
190 ȖȓȖȞİĲĮȚ, ੖Ȣ Ĳİ șİĮ૙Ȣ İ੝ȞȐȗİĲĮȚ ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ.”
180 ੮Ȣ ĳȐșૅā ੔ įૅ ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȚȠ ȝȐȜૅ * at Il. 10.162 ੮Ȣ ĳȐșૅā ੔ įૅ ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȚȠ ȝȐȜĮ

țȡĮȚʌȞ૵Ȣ ਕȞȩȡȠȣıİ ਥȝȝĮʌȑȦȢ ਫ਼ʌȐțȠȣıİȞ * at Od. 14.485 181 cf. Il.
3.396–7 țĮȓ ૧ૅ ੪Ȣ Ƞ੣Ȟ ਥȞȩȘıİ șİ઼Ȣ ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮ įİȚȡȒȞ / ıĲȒșİȐ șૅ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ țĮ੿
੕ȝȝĮĲĮ ȝĮȡȝĮȓȡȠȞĲĮ 182 cf. Il. 3.427 / ੕ııİ ʌȐȜȚȞ țȜȓȞĮıĮ; Od. 16.179
ĲĮȡȕȒıĮȢ įૅ ਦĲȑȡȦıİ ȕȐȜૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ, ȝ੽ șİઁȢ İ੅Ș 183 ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ țĮȜ੹
ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ] cf. Od. 8.85 țȐȜȣȥİ į੻ țĮȜ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ / 184 = Od. 22.311 = 343 =
366 186 ਩ȖȞȦȞ ੪Ȣ șİઁȢ ਷ıșĮ ~ Il. 22.9–10 Ƞ੝įȑ ȞȪ ʌȫ ȝİ / ਩ȖȞȦȢ ੪Ȣ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚ
ȞȘȝİȡĲ੻Ȣ ਩İȚʌİȢ * at Il. 3.204 187 ~ 131; cf. Od. 13.324 / Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ ıİ ʌȡઁȢ
ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ 188 cf. Il. 5.887 ਵ țİ ȗઅȢ ਕȝİȞȘȞઁȢ ਩Į ȤĮȜțȠ૙Ƞ ĲȣʌોȚıȚ
182 ਩ĲȡĮʌİȞ ਙȜȜȘȚ * at Il. 5.187 183 ਗȥ įૅ Į੣ĲȚȢ * at Il. 8.335; Od. 18.157 =
21.139, 166 = 23.164 țĮȜ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ * also at Il. 19.285; Od. 15.332
185 ੅įȠȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ * at e.g. Il. 3.169; 10.275; 15.488; Od. 2.155; 4.269; 10.414;
hDem. 57, 68 188 ਥȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚȞ * at Od. 1.95, 391 -Ț; 3.78; 4.710 -Ț; 17.419;
19.75; Hes. Op. 249, 270 -Ț, 719
181 į੻ ੅įİȞ Ȍ : įૅ İੇįİ M 182 ĲȐȡȕȘıȑȞ Ȍ : ĲȐȡțȘıȑȞ B : ĲȐȡȕȘıȑ M

183 ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ West : ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ Ĳૅ ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ vel ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ Ĳİ țĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ ȍ
186 ਩İȚʌİȢ Ȍ : ਩İȚʌĮȢ (sed İs) a : İ੅İȚʌİȢ M 189 ȕȚȠșȐȜȝȚȠȢ Ĭ : ȕȚȠĳșȐȜȝȚȠȢ
Mp 190 ȖȓȖȞİĲĮȚ Ȍ : ȖȓȞİĲĮȚ M
Thus she spoke; and he responded very quickly from his sleep. 180
But when he saw Aphrodite’s neck and lovely eyes,
he was frightened and turned his glance aside, in another direction.
And he covered his handsome face again with the blanket
and spoke winged words, pleading with her:
‘The moment I first laid eyes on you, goddess, 185
I recognized that you were a god; but you lied to me!
But I beg you by Zeus the aegis-bearer:
do not let me dwell among humans alive
but incapacitated! Pity me! Since no man who sleeps with
immortal goddesses retains his strength unimpaired.’ 190
ĲઁȞ įૅ ਱ȝİȓȕİĲૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘā

“ਝȖȤȓıȘ, țȪįȚıĲİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ,
șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ıોȚıȚ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ ȜȓȘȞā
Ƞ੝ ȖȐȡ ĲȠȓ ĲȚ įȑȠȢ ʌĮșȑİȚȞ țĮțઁȞ ਥȟ ਥȝȑșİȞ Ȗİ
195 Ƞ੝įૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ, ਥʌİ੿ ਷ ĳȓȜȠȢ ਥıı੿ șİȠ૙ıȚ.
ıȠ੿ įૅ ਩ıĲĮȚ ĳȓȜȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ, ੔Ȣ ਥȞ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ,
țĮ੿ ʌĮ૙įİȢ ʌĮȓįİııȚ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚā
Ĳ૵Ț į੻ țĮ੿ ǹੁȞİȓĮȢ ੕ȞȠȝૅ ਩ııİĲĮȚ, Ƞ੢ȞİțȐ ȝૅ ĮੁȞȩȞ
਩ıȤİȞ ਙȤȠȢ, ਪȞİțĮ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝʌİıȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ.
200 ਕȖȤȓșİȠȚ į੻ ȝȐȜȚıĲĮ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
Įੁİ੿ ਕĳૅ ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȢ ȖİȞİોȢ İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ĳȣȒȞ Ĳİ.
ਵĲȠȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ȟĮȞșઁȞ īĮȞȣȝȒįİĮ ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ
ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİ ੔Ȟ įȚ੹ țȐȜȜȠȢ, ੆Ȟૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ ȝİĲİȓȘ
țĮȓ Ĳİ ǻȚઁȢ țĮĲ੹ į૵ȝĮ șİȠ૙Ȣ ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪȠȚ,
191–2 ~ 107–8 191 ~ Il. 14.193 Ĳ੽Ȟ įૅ țĲȜ. 193 ~ Od. 4.825 șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘįȑ
ĲȚ ʌȐȖȤȣ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ ȜȓȘȞ 194 cf. Od. 5.347 Ƞ੝įȑ Ĳȓ ĲȠȚ ʌĮșȑİȚȞ įȑȠȢ
Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌȠȜȑıșĮȚ 195 cf. Od. 9.276 Ƞ੝į੻ șİ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ, ਥʌİ੿ ਷ ʌȠȜઃ ĳȑȡĲİȡȠȓ
İੁȝİȞ ĳȓȜȠȢ ਥıı੿ șİȠ૙ıȚ] cf. Od. 24.92 ĳȓȜȠȢ ਷ıșĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ* 196–7 ~ Il.
20.307–8 Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ ǹੁȞİȓĮȠ ȕȓȘ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ / țĮ੿ ʌĮȓįȦȞ ʌĮ૙įİȢ, ĲȠȓ țİȞ
ȝİĲȩʌȚıșİ ȖȑȞȦȞĲĮȚ 199 cf. Il. 18.85 ਵȝĮĲȚ Ĳ૵Ț, ੖Ĳİ ıİ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝȕĮȜȠȞ
İ੝ȞોȚ 202–4 cf. Il. 20.234–5 ĲઁȞ țĮ੿ ਕȞȘȡȑȥĮȞĲȠ șİȠ੿ ǻȚ੿ ȠੁȞȠȤȠİȪİȚȞ /
țȐȜȜİȠȢ İ੆ȞİțĮ ȠੈȠ, ੆Ȟૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ ȝİĲİȓȘ 202–3 ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ / ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİ] cf.
Hes. Th. 914 ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ਸȢ ʌĮȡ੹ ȝȘĲȡȩȢ, ਩įȦțİ į੻ ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ
192 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at 3 (where see apparatus), 122, 200, 281

196 ĳȓȜȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ * at Il. 13.299; 23.289; Od. 2.17; 3.111; 15.63 = 554 = 20.283 =
21.432; 16.339; 24.151; cf. 208 ĳȓȜȠȞ ȣੂȩȞ* 197 įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ * at 209, 248; e.g.
Il. 5.112, 284; 7.171; Od. 4.209; 5.256; 7.96; Hes. Th. 402; Op. 236; hDem. 162;
hAp. 485 200 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at 3 (where see apparatus), 122, 192,
281 202 ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ * at e.g. Il. 1.175; 2.197; 6.198; Od. 14.243; 16.298;
Hes. Th. 56; Op. 104; hAp. 205; [Hes.] Sc. 33 204 țĮĲ੹ į૵ȝĮ * at e.g. Il.
4.386; 14.257; Od. 1.228; 2.247; 3.428; 4.44; hAp. 2 țĮĲ੹ į૵ȝĮ ǻȚȩȢ
194 ĲȠȓ ĲȚ Ĭ : ĲȚ ĲȠȚ M : ĲȚ p 197 ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ ȍ : ਥțȖİȖĮ૵ĲİȢ Ilgen :

ਥțȖİȖĮȩȞĲİȢ Baumeister 198 ਩ııİĲĮȚ ȍ : ਙııİĲĮȚ Bī 201 ਕĳૅ Ȍ : ਕȝĳૅ M
203 ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİ ੔Ȟ Matthiae : ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ਦઁȞ fp : ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ਥȞઁȞ x : ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ĮੁȞઁȞ M :
ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ੔Ȟ Hermann 204 ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪȠȚ faL : ਥʌȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪȠȚ vel ਥʌૅ ȠੁȞȠȤȠİȪȠȚ
Ȇp : ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪİȚȞ M
Then Aphrodite the daughter of Zeus answered him:

‘Anchises, most prominent of human mortals:
show some courage, do not be too afraid in your mind!
For you have no reason to fear that you will suffer at my hands
or those of the other blessed ones, since the gods are
well-disposed to you. 195
You will have a son you love, who will be a king among
the Trojans,
and your family line will continue forever.
(Your son’s) name will be Aeneas, on account of the terrible
anguish that gripped me because I was thrown into a
mortal man’s bed.
Of all human beings, the members of your family are 200
always the closest to the gods in appearance and build.
Indeed—Zeus the counsellor abducted blond Ganymede
because of his good looks, so that he could join the immortals
and pour wine for the gods in Zeus’ house,
205 șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįİ૙Ȟ, ʌȐȞĲİııȚ ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ,

ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ ਥț țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ ਕĳȪııȦȞ ȞȑțĲĮȡ ਥȡȣșȡȩȞ.
ȉȡ૵Į į੻ ʌȑȞșȠȢ ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ ਩Ȥİ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ, Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ İ੅įȘ
੖ʌʌȘȚ Ƞੂ ĳȓȜȠȞ ȣੂઁȞ ਕȞȒȡʌĮıİ șȑıʌȚȢ ਙİȜȜĮā
ĲઁȞ į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ȖȩĮıțİ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ.
210 țĮȓ ȝȚȞ ǽİઃȢ ਥȜȑȘıİ, įȓįȠȣ įȑ Ƞੂ ȣੈȠȢ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ,
੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ਕȡıȓʌȠįĮȢ, ĲȠȓ Ĳૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ ĳȠȡȑȠȣıȚā
ĲȠȪȢ Ƞੂ į૵ȡȠȞ ਩įȦțİȞ ਩ȤİȚȞ, İੇʌȑȞ Ĳİ ਪțĮıĲĮ
ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥĳȘȝȠıȪȞȘȚıȚ įȚȐțĲȠȡȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ,
੪Ȣ ਩ȠȚ ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȢ țĮ੿ ਕȖȒȡȦȢ ੇıĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ.
215 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ǽȘȞઁȢ ੖ Ȗૅ ਩țȜȣİȞ ਕȖȖİȜȚȐȦȞ,
205 ʌȐȞĲİııȚ ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ] cf. ʌȐȞĲİııȚ ĲİĲȚȝ[ȑȞȘ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚ]ıȚȞ* at

hDem. 397 206 ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ ਥț țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ * at Il. 23.219 ȞȑțĲĮȡ ਥȡȣșȡȩȞ * at
Il. 19.38 207–8 cf. Od. 24.423 ʌĮȚįઁȢ ȖȐȡ Ƞੂ ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ ਥȞ੿ ĳȡİı੿ ʌȑȞșȠȢ ਩țİȚĲȠ
207 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ ਵȚįİȚ] cf. Il. 13.674 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ ਵȚįȘȚ* 210–11 cf. Il. 5.265–7 ĲોȢ ȖȐȡ
ĲȠȚ ȖİȞİોȢ, ਸȢ ȉȡȦȓ ʌİȡ İ੝ȡȪȠʌĮ ǽİȪȢ / į૵Ȥૅ ȣੈȠȢ ʌȠȚȞ੽Ȟ īĮȞȣȝȒįİȠȢ, Ƞ੢Ȟİțૅ
ਙȡȚıĲȠȚ / ੆ʌʌȦȞ, ੖ııȠȚ ਩ĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਱૵ Ĳૅ ਱ȑȜȚȩȞ Ĳİ 215 ~ Od. 5.150 ਵȚૅ, ਥʌİ੿ į੽
ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥʌȑțȜȣİȞ ਕȖȖİȜȚȐȦȞ
205 șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįİ૙Ȟ * at Hes. fr. 145.16 șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁ[įİ૙Ȟ]; [Hes.] Sc. 318 206 ਥț
țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ * also at Il. 3.295 ȞȑțĲĮȡ ਥȡȣșȡȩȞ * also at Od. 5.93 208 ĳȓȜȠȞ ȣੂȩȞ
* at 282; e.g. Il. 3.307; 5.314, 318; 6.474; 15.639; Od. 3.398; hAp. 11; cf. 196
ĳȓȜȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ* 209 įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ * at Od. 4.209; hAp. 485; ਵȝĮĲĮ
ʌȐȞĲĮ alone * at 148 (where see apparatus), 221, 240; įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ alone * also at
197 (where see apparatus) 210 ȣੈȠȢ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ * at Il. 2.230 211 ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ
ਕȡıȓʌȠįĮȢ] cf. Il. 3.327 ੆ʌʌȠȚ ਕİȡıȓʌȠįİȢ*; 23.475 ੆ʌʌȠȚ ਕİȡıȓʌȠįİȢ*
212 İੇʌȑȞ Ĳİ ਪțĮıĲĮ] cf. Od. 3.361 İ੅ʌȦ Ĳİ ਪțĮıĲĮ* 213 įȚȐțĲȠȡȠȢ
ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ * at Il. 21.497; 24.339, 378 = 389 = 410 = 432, 445; Od. 5.43, 75, 94,
145; 8.338; 24.99; Hes. Op. 77 214 forms of ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȢ țĮ੿ ਕȖȒȡȦȢ/ਕȖȒȡĮȠȢ *
at Il. 8.539; Od. 5.136 = 7.257 = 23.336; Hes. Th. 949; fr. 23a.24 ੇıĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ *
at Il. 21.315; Od. 11.304, 484 215 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ įȒ alone * also at 128 (where
see apparatus)
205 ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ fp : ĲİĲȚȝȘȝȑȞȠȢ V : ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞ M : ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞȠȢ x 206 țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ

M : țȡĮĲોȡȠȢ Ȍ ਕĳȪııȦȞ Ȍ : ਕĳȪııİȚȞ M 207 ȉȡ૵Į ȍ : ȉȡ૵Ȣ aȆmg İ੅įȘ
West : Ș੅įȘ M : Ș੅įİȚ vel ਵįİȚ Ȍ 208 ੖ʌʌȘȚ T : ੖ʌȘ Ȍ : ੖ʌȠȚ M 209 į੽
਩ʌİȚĲĮ scripsi : įਵʌİȚĲĮ ȍ 212 Ĳİ ȍ : į੻ Wolf 214 ਕȖȒȡȦȢ ȍ : ਕȖȒȡĮȠȢ f
ੇıĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ Mbmg. : ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ Ȍ
a marvellous sight, honored by all the immortals 205

as he ladles red nektar out of a gold mixing-bowl.
Inescapable grief gripped Tros’ mind, and he had no idea
where the divine whirlwind carried his beloved son off to.
He accordingly mourned for him constantly day after day.
But Zeus pitied him and offered him, as compensation for his son, 210
high-stepping horses, the type that carry the immortals.
He gave these to him to have as a gift; and the conductor
Argeiphontes,
on Zeus’ orders, explained the entire situation,
that (Ganymede) was immortal and ageless, exactly like the gods.
And when (Tros) heard Zeus’ message Zeus, 215
Ƞ੝țȑĲૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ȖȩĮıțİ, ȖİȖȒșİȚ į੻ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਩ȞįȠȞ,

ȖȘșȩıȣȞȠȢ įૅ ੆ʌʌȠȚıȚȞ ਕİȜȜȠʌȩįİııȚȞ ੑȤİ૙ĲȠ.
੪Ȣ įૅ Į੣ ȉȚșȦȞઁȞ ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ૅǾȫȢ
ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȢ ȖİȞİોȢ, ਥʌȚİȓțİȜȠȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ.
220 ȕો įૅ ੅ȝİȞ ĮੁĲȒıȠȣıĮ țİȜĮȚȞİĳȑĮ ȀȡȠȞȓȦȞĮ
ਕșȐȞĮĲȩȞ Ĳૅ İੇȞĮȚ țĮ੿ ȗȫİȚȞ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ.
ĲોȚ į੻ ǽİઃȢ ਥʌȑȞİȣıİ țĮ੿ ਥțȡȒȘȞİȞ ਥȑȜįȦȡā
ȞȘʌȓȘ, Ƞ੝įૅ ਥȞȩȘıİ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ
ਸ਼ȕȘȞ ĮੁĲોıĮȚ ȟ૨ıĮȓ Ĳૅ ਙʌȠ ȖોȡĮȢ ੑȜȠȚȩȞ.
225 ĲઁȞ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ İ੆ȦȢ ȝ੻Ȟ ਩ȤİȞ ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ,
ૅǾȠ૙ ĲİȡʌȩȝİȞȠȢ ȤȡȣıȠșȡȩȞȦȚ ਱ȡȚȖİȞİȓȘȚ
ȞĮ૙İ ʌĮȡૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠોȚȢ ਥʌ੿ ʌİȓȡĮıȚ ȖĮȓȘȢ.
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ ʌȡ૵ĲĮȚ ʌȠȜȚĮ੿ țĮĲȑȤȣȞĲȠ ਩șİȚȡĮȚ
țĮȜોȢ ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ İ੝ȘȖİȞȑȠȢ Ĳİ ȖİȞİȓȠȣ,
230 ĲȠ૨ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ İ੝ȞોȢ ȝ੻Ȟ ਕʌİȓȤİĲȠ ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ,
218 ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ૅǾȫȢ * at Od. 15.250 221 = 240 226–7 cf. Od.
22.197–8 Ƞ੝į੻ ıȑ Ȗૅ ਱ȡȚȖȑȞİȚĮ ʌĮȡૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠȐȦȞ / ȜȒıİȚ ਕȞİȡȤȠȝȑȞȘ
ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ 227 ਥʌ੿ ʌİȓȡĮıȚ ȖĮȓȘȢ * at Od. 9.284 233 ıĲȣȖİȡઁȞ țĮĲ੹
ȖોȡĮȢ ਩ʌİȚȖİȞ] cf. Il. 23.623 ȤĮȜİʌઁȞ țĮĲ੹ ȖોȡĮȢ ਥʌİȓȖİȚ /
217 forms of ȖȘșȩıȣȞȠȢ * at Il. 7.122; 13.29; 21.390; Od. 5.269; 11.540; hDem.
437; hAp. 137 219 forms of ਥʌȚİȓțİȜȠȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ * at Il. 1.265; 4.394 -ȠȢ;
11.60; Od. 15.414; 21.14 -ȠȢ; Hes. fr. 10a.64 -ȠȢ; [Hes.] Sc. 182 220 forms of
țİȜĮȚȞİĳȑĮ ȀȡȠȞȓȦȞĮ * at e.g. Il. 1.397; 6.267; 11.78; 24.290; Hes. fr. 195.53;
hDem. 91 221 ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ * at 148 (where see apparatus), 209, 240
223 ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ * at 230 225 ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ * at 274 228 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİȓ *
at 128 / Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ įȒ (where see second apparatus); e.g. Il. 1.458, 464, 467; Od.
1.150; 2.9, 378; Hes. Th. 820; hDem. 301 229 ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ * at Il. 4.109; 10.15;
16.77 ਥȤșȡોȢ ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ; 18.353; 22.78; 23.169; Od. 13.399, 431; Hes. Th. 924; h.
28.5 230 ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ * at 223
216 ȖİȖȒșİȚ ȍ : ȖİȖȒșȘ AtB : ȖİȖȒșİ P 218 ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ ȍ : ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȞ p

225 İ੆ȦȢ ȍ : ੆ȦȢ AQ ਩ȤİȞ Ȍ : ਩Ȥİ M 228 țĮĲȑȤȣȞĲȠ Ȍ : țĮĲȑȤȠȚȞĲȠ M
229 İ੝ȘȖİȞȑȠȢ M : İ੝ȖİȞȑȠȢ Ȍ
then he no longer went on mourning but instead felt joy in his heart,
and he gleefully rode about, drawn by his whirlwind-footed horses.
So too gold-throned Dawn snatched another member
of your family, Tithonus, who resembled the immortals.
She went off to ask the dark-cloud son of Cronus 220
that (Tithonus) be immortal and live forever,
and Zeus nodded his consent to her and fulfilled her wish.
The fool! Mistress Dawn lacked the wit
to ask for youth and to scour him clean of ruinous old age.
So as long as he was young and luscious, 225
he enjoyed gold-throned, early-born Dawn,
living beside Ocean’s streams at the furthest end of the earth.
But when the first gray hairs spilled down
from his handsome head and noble beard,
Mistress Dawn indeed avoided his bed, 230
Į੝ĲઁȞ įૅ Į੣Ĳૅ ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİȞ ਥȞ੿ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ

ıȓĲȦȚ Ĳૅ ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȘȚ Ĳİ țĮ੿ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ įȚįȠ૨ıĮ.
ਕȜȜૅ ੖Ĳİ į੽ ʌȐȝʌĮȞ ıĲȣȖİȡઁȞ țĮĲ੹ ȖોȡĮȢ ਩ʌİȚȖİȞ
Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ įȪȞĮĲૅ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ,
235 ਸ਼įİ įȑ Ƞੂ țĮĲ੹ șȣȝઁȞ ਕȡȓıĲȘ ĳĮȓȞİĲȠ ȕȠȣȜȒā
ਥȞ șĮȜȐȝȦȚ țĮĲȑșȘțİ, șȪȡĮȢ įૅ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ.
ĲȠ૨ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ ĳȦȞ੽ ૧ȑİȚ ਙıʌİĲȠȢ, Ƞ੝įૅ ਩ĲȚ ț૙țȣȢ
਩ıșૅ Ƞ੆Ș ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ ਥȞ੿ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȠ૙ıȚ ȝȑȜİııȚȞ.
Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਥȖȫ Ȗİ ı੻ ĲȠ૙ȠȞ ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਦȜȠȓȝȘȞ
240 ਕșȐȞĮĲȩȞ Ĳૅ İੇȞĮȚ țĮ੿ ȗȫİȚȞ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ.
ਕȜȜૅ İੁ ȝ੻Ȟ ĲȠȚȠ૨ĲȠȢ ਥઅȞ İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ įȑȝĮȢ Ĳİ
ȗȫȠȚȢ ਲȝȑĲİȡȩȢ Ĳİ ʌȩıȚȢ țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅ȘȢ,
Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਩ʌİȚĲȐ ȝૅ ਙȤȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪʌĲȠȚ.
Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ ıİ ȝ੻Ȟ ĲȐȤĮ ȖોȡĮȢ ੒ȝȠȓȚȠȞ ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪȥİȚ
245 ȞȘȜİȚȑȢ, Ĳȩ Ĳૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ʌĮȡȓıĲĮĲĮȚ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚȞ,
234 ~ Od. 8.298 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ ਷Ȟ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ 236 ਥȞ șĮȜȐȝȦȚ
țĮĲȑșȘțİ] cf. Od. 24.166 ਥȢ șȐȜĮȝȠȞ țĮĲȑșȘțİ* șȪȡĮȢ įૅ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ ~
60 șȪȡĮȢ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ*; Il. 14.169 șȪȡĮȢ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ* 237 ૧ȑİȚ
ਙıʌİĲȠȢ ~ Il. 18.403* ૧ȑİȞ ਙıʌİĲȠȢ 237–8 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țĲȜ. ~ Od. 11.393–4 Ƞ੝įૅ
਩ĲȚ ț૙țȣȢ, / Ƞ੆Ș ʌİȡ ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ ਥȞ੿ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȠ૙ıȚ ȝȑȜİııȚ 240 = 221
242 ʌȩıȚȢ țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅ȘȢ ~ Od. 6.244 ʌȩıȚȢ țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅Ș* 243 ਙȤȠȢ
ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪʌĲȠȚ] cf. Il. 14.294 ਩ȡȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțȐȜȣȥİȞ /
231 ਥȞ੿ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ * at e.g. Il. 1.396; 5.805; 7.148; 8.520; Od. 2.94, 299; 3.256;
Hes. fr. 252.3; hDem. 252 233 ਕȜȜૅ ੖Ĳİ įȒ * at e.g. Il. 1.493; 3.209, 212, 216;
Od. 1.16; 2.150; 3.269; Hes. Th. 58; hAp. 349 235 = Il. 2.5 = 10.17 = 14.161 =
Hes. fr. 209.1, cf. Od. 9.424 = 11.230 238 also = Il. 11.669 ~ Od. 21.283
239 Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਥȖȫ * at Il. 6.129 Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਥȖȫ Ȗİ; 8.210 Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਥȖȫ Ȗૅ; 9.517 Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ
ਥȖȫ Ȗİ ıȑ; 20.134 Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਥȖȫ Ȗૅ; 24.297 Ƞ੝ț ਗȞ ਥȖȫ Ȗİ ıૅ ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ * at
247 -Ț (where see apparatus); Il. 24.107; Hes. Th. 782, 954; hHerm. 366, 525;
[Hes.] Sc. 366 240 ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ * at 148 (where see apparatus), 209, 221
241 İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ įȑȝĮȢ Ĳİ * at Od. 8.116; 11.469; 18.251; 19.124; 24.17
237 įȒ ĲȠȚ Mx, unde įૅ ਵĲȠȚ Hermann : įȒ ĲȚ f : įૅ Ƞ੡ĲȠȚ p ૧ȑİȚ Wolf : ૧İ૙ ȍ
239 ਥȖȫ ȍ : ਥȖİ vel ਩Ȗİ AQ 241 ĲȠȚȠ૨ĲȠȢ Ȍ : ĲȠ૙ȠȢ M 244 ĲȐȤĮ Mabsp :
țĮĲ੹ fb 245 Ĳૅ p : Ȗૅ MĬ : ıૅ Ȇ
although she kept him in her home and took care of him
with mortal food and ambrosia, and gave him attractive clothes.
But when loathsome old age weighed him down completely
and he was unable to move any of his limbs or raise them,
the following struck her in her heart as the best plan: 235
she deposited him in a bedroom and closed the shining doors.
His voice, in fact, runs on relentlessly, but the strength
in his gnarled limbs is no longer as it was before.
I would not choose for you to be immortal
and to live forever among the immortals like that. 240
If you could go on living as you are, with your current
looks and build, and could be called my husband,
in that case no grief would enwrap my subtle mind.
As it is, however, pitiless, indiscriminate old age will soon
enfold you; it is ruinous and tiresome for human beings 245
Ƞ੝ȜȩȝİȞȠȞ țĮȝĮĲȘȡȩȞ, ੖ Ĳİ ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ șİȠȓ ʌİȡ.

Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȝȠ੿ ȝȑȖૅ ੕ȞİȚįȠȢ ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ
਩ııİĲĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ İ੆ȞİțĮ ıİ૙Ƞ,
Ƞ੄ ʌȡ੿Ȟ ਥȝȠઃȢ ੑȐȡȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ȝȒĲȚįĮȢ, ĮੈȢ ʌȠĲİ ʌȐȞĲĮȢ
250 ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟĮ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ,
ĲȐȡȕİıțȠȞā ʌȐȞĲĮȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥȝઁȞ įȐȝȞĮıțİ ȞȩȘȝĮ.
Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ Ƞ੝țȑĲȚ ȝȠȚ ıĲȩȝĮ ȤİȓıİĲĮȚ ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ
ĲȠ૨ĲȠ ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ, ਥʌİ੿ ȝȐȜĮ ʌȠȜȜઁȞ ਕȐıșȘȞ,
ıȤȑĲȜȚȠȞ, Ƞ੝ț ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȩȞ, ਕʌİʌȜȐȖȤșȘȞ į੻ ȞȩȠȚȠ,
255 ʌĮ૙įĮ įૅ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȗȫȞȘȚ ਥșȑȝȘȞ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ.
ĲઁȞ ȝȑȞ, ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ੅įȘȚ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ,
ȞȪȝĳĮȚ ȝȚȞ șȡȑȥȠȣıȚȞ ੑȡİıț૵ȚȠȚ ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ
Į੄ Ĳȩįİ ȞĮȚİĲȐȠȣıȚȞ ੕ȡȠȢ ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİā
Į੆ ૧ૅ Ƞ੡Ĳİ șȞȘĲȠ૙Ȣ Ƞ੡Ĳૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਪʌȠȞĲĮȚ.
247–8 ੕ȞİȚįȠȢ … / ਩ııİĲĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ] cf. Il. 16.498–9 ੕ȞİȚįȠȢ /
਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ 248 İ੆ȞİțĮ ıİ૙Ƞ * at Il. 6.525 249 ੑȐȡȠȣȢ
* at Hes. Th. 205 ʌĮȡșİȞȓȠȣȢ Ĳૅ ੑȐȡȠȣȢ ȝİȚįȒȝĮĲȐ Ĳૅ ਥȟĮʌȐĲĮȢ Ĳİ 250 ~ 50
252 ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ * at Od. 6.66 Į੅įİĲȠ Ȗ੹ȡ șĮȜİȡઁȞ ȖȐȝȠȞ ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ /
253 ʌȠȜȜઁȞ ਕȐıșȘȞ] cf. Il. 19.113 ʌȠȜȜઁȞ ਕȐıșȘ* 255 ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ * at
Il. 2.821 ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ șİ੹ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ 258 ~ 285, cf. [98] ੕ȡȠȢ
ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİ * at Hes. Th. 2
246 ੖ Ĳİ ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ șİȠȓ ʌİȡ] cf. ĲȐ Ĳİ ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ șİȠȓ ʌİȡ * at Il. 20.65; Hes. Th.
810 247 ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ * at Il. 1.520; 7.102; 15.107; 21.476; Hes. Th.
120; hHerm. 458 248 įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ * at 197 (where see apparatus), 209
İ੆ȞİțĮ ıİ૙Ƞ * also at Od. 6.156 252 Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ įȒ * at Il. 18.290; 20.307; 21.92;
22.300 253 ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ * at 261 -Ț; Il. 20.314; Hes. Th. 449; hHerm. 168
256 ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ * at 274, 278; cf. Od. 4.414 ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲĮ*
ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ * at 105 (where see apparatus), 272; e.g. Il. 1.605; 18.11; Od. 4.833;
Hes. Op. 155; fr. 362
247 ਥȞ M : ȝİĲૅ Ȍ 249 ȝȒĲȚįĮȢ scripsi : ȝȒĲȚĮȢ ȍ ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ȍ : ʌȐȞĲİȢ AQ

250 ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟĮ West : ıȣȞȑȝȚȟĮ ȍ : ıȣȞȑȝȚȟĮȢ E țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ Ȍ : țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ M
251 įȐȝȞĮıțİ MĬī : įȐȝȞĮțİ p 252 ıĲȩȝĮ ȤİȓıİĲĮȚ Martin : ıĲȠȞĮȤȒıİĲĮȚ ȍ :
ıĲȩȝĮ ȤȒıİĲĮȚ Chalcondyles : ıĲȩȝĮ ĲȜȒıİĲĮȚ Matthiae 254 ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȩȞ Martin :
ੑȞȩĲĮĲȠȞ ȍ ਕʌİʌȜȐȖȤșȘȞ ȍ : ਕʌİʌȜȐȤșȘȞ p 255 ȗȫȞȘȚ Ȍ : ȗȫȞȘȞ M 256
ਥʌ੽Ȟ Ȍ : ਥʌİ੿Ȟ M ੅įȘȚ ȍ : ਵįȘ a 257 ੑȡİıț૵ȚȠȚ Ȍ : ੑȡİıțȩȠȚ M 258 Ĳİ1 om. M
who encounter it, and the gods despise it.

But I am going to suffer enormous abuse among
the immortal gods forever and constantly because of you,
whereas previously they feared my whispering and the plots
I used to involve all the immortals with mortal 250
women; for my plans used to overpower them all.
But now my mouth will no longer open wide, pointing
this out among the immortals, since I went enormously,
wretchedly, unspeakably wrong, and behaved insanely,
and I put a child in my belly by going to bed with a mortal. 255
As for him, the moment he first sees the sunlight,
the deep-bosomed, mountain-dwelling nymphs who inhabit
this high, sacred peak will bring him up;
they keep apart from both mortals and immortals.
260 įȘȡઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ȗȫȠȣıȚ țĮ੿ ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ İੇįĮȡ ਩įȠȣıȚ,

țĮȓ Ĳİ ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ țĮȜઁȞ ȤȠȡઁȞ ਥȡȡȫıĮȞĲȠā
ĲોȚıȚ į੻ ıȚȜȘȞȠȓ Ĳİ țĮ੿ İ੡ıțȠʌȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ
ȝȓıȖȠȞĲૅ ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ȝȣȤ૵Ț ıʌİȓȦȞ ਥȡȠȑȞĲȦȞ.
ĲોȚıȚ įૅ ਚȝૅ ਱ૅ ਥȜȐĲĮȚ ਱੻ įȡȪİȢ ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ
265 ȖİȚȞȠȝȑȞȘȚıȚȞ ਩ĳȣıĮȞ ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿ ȕȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚā
țĮȜĮ੿ ĲȘȜİșȐȠȣıĮȚ ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ
ਦıĲ઼ıૅ ਱ȜȓȕĮĲȠȚ, ĲİȝȑȞİĮ įȑ ਦ țȚțȜȒıțȠȣıȚȞ
ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞā Ĳ੹Ȣ įૅ Ƞ੡ ĲȚ ȕȡȠĲȠ੿ țİȓȡȠȣıȚ ıȚįȒȡȦȚ.
ਕȜȜૅ ੖Ĳİ țİȞ į੽ ȝȠ૙ȡĮ ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȘȚ șĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ,
270 ਕȗȐȞİĲĮȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿ įȑȞįȡİĮ țĮȜȐ,
ĳȜȠȚઁȢ įૅ ਕȝĳȚʌİȡȚĳșȚȞȪșİȚ, ʌȓʌĲȠȣıȚ įૅ ਙʌૅ ੕ȗȠȚ,
Ĳ૵Ȟ įȑ șૅ ੒ȝȠ૨ ȥȣȤ੽ ȜİȓʌİȚ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ.
Į੄ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȝઁȞ șȡȑȥȠȣıȚ ʌĮȡ੹ ıĳȓıȚȞ ȣੂઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȚ.
ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ਪȜȘȚ ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ,
275 ਙȟȠȣıȓȞ ĲȠȚ įİ૨ȡȠ șİĮ੿ įİȓȟȠȣıȓ Ĳİ ʌĮ૙įĮ.
261 ਥȡȡȫıĮȞĲȠ * at Il. 24.616 ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ, Į੆ Ĳૅ ਕȝĳૅ ਝțİȜȒıȚȠȞ ਥȡȡȫıĮȞĲȠ

264–5 cf. Hes. Op. 509–10 ʌȠȜȜ੹Ȣ į੻ įȡ૨Ȣ ਫ਼ȥȚțȩȝȠȣȢ ਥȜȐĲĮȢ Ĳİ ʌĮȤİȓĮȢ / Ƞ੡ȡİȠȢ
ਥȞ ȕȒııȘȚȢ ʌȚȜȞ઼Ț ȤșȠȞ੿ ʌȠȣȜȣȕȠĲİȓȡȘȚ 264 įȡȪİȢ ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ] cf. Il. 12.132
įȡȪİȢ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ / 267 ĲİȝȑȞȘ įȑ ਦ țȚțȜȒıțȠȣıȚȞ] cf. Od. 4.355
ĭȐȡȠȞ įȑ ਦ țȚțȜȒıțȠȣıȚ / 269 ȝȠ૙ȡĮ ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȘȚ șĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ] cf. Il. 16.853 =
24.132 ਙȖȤȚ ʌĮȡȑıĲȘțİȞ șȐȞĮĲȠȢ țĮ੿ ȝȠ૙ȡĮ țȡĮĲĮȚȒ
260 İੇįĮȡ ਩įȠȣıȚ * at Od. 9.84; 11.123 = 23.270 261 ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ * at 253
-ȚȞ (where see apparatus) 262 forms of İ੡ıțȠʌȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ * at Il. 24.24,
109; Od. 1.38; 7.137; hAp. 200; hHerm. 73 265 ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿ ȕȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ * at
hAp. 363 266 ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ * at 160 (where see apparatus)
272 ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ * at 105 (where see apparatus), 256 (where see apparatus)
274 ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ * at 256 (where see apparatus), 278 ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ
ਸ਼ȕȘ * at 225
262 ıȚȜȘȞȠȓ Mfb : ıİȜȘȞȠȓ a : ıİȚȜȘȞȠȓ p 263 ıʌİȓȦȞ Ȍ : ıʌȑȦȞ M

265 ȕȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ Ȍ : țȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ B : ȕȠĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ ME 267 ĲİȝȑȞİĮ Faulkner :
ĲİȝȑȞȘ ȍ 268 Ƞ੡ ĲȚ Mx : Ƞ੡ĲȠȚ fp 269 ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȘȚ Stephanus : ʌĮȡİıĲȒțİȚ
ȍ : ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȠȚ p 272 șૅ Hermann : Ȥૅ ȍ 273 șȡȑȥȠȣıȚ ȍ : șȡȑȥȠȣıȚȞ AQ
275 ਙȟȠȣıȓȞ xp : ਙȟȠȣıȓ Mf ĲȠȚ M : ıȠȚ Ȍ : ıİ V
They live a long time and eat imperishable food, 260

and they nimbly perform their lovely dance in the company
of the immortals;
the silens and sharp-sighted Argeiphontes
go to bed with them in the depths of their lovely caves.
When they are born, firs or high-topped oaks
are produced at the same time on the earth that nourishes men. 265
They stand beautiful, high, and flourishing
in the lofty mountains, and are referred to as sacred precincts
of the immortals; mortals never cut them down with axes.
But when death’s doom arrives,
first the lovely trees dry up on the ground, 270
and the bark that covers them falls off on every side, and
their branches drop,
and the nymphs’ souls leave the sunlight along with the trees.
They will keep my son with them and bring him up.
But the moment he reaches luscious youth,
the goddesses will bring the child here and show him to you. 275
278 ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ੅įȘȚȢ șȐȜȠȢ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ,

ȖȘșȒıİȚȢ ੒ȡȩȦȞā ȝȐȜĮ Ȗ੹ȡ șİȠİȓțİȜȠȢ ਩ıĲĮȚā
280 ਙȟİȚȢ įૅ Į੝ĲȓțĮ ȝȚȞ ʌȠĲ੿ ૓ǿȜȚȠȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİııĮȞ.
ਲ਼Ȟ įȑ ĲȚȢ İ੅ȡȘĲĮȓ ıİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ,
ਸ਼ ĲȚȢ ıȠ੿ ĳȓȜȠȞ ȣੂઁȞ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȗȫȞȘȚ șȑĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ,
Ĳ૵Ț į੻ ıઃ ȝȣșİ૙ıșĮȚ ȝİȝȞȘȝȑȞȠȢ ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦā
“ĳȐıȚȞ ĲȠȚ ȞȪȝĳȘȢ țĮȜȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ ਩țȖȠȞȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ,
285 Į੄ Ĳȩįİ ȞĮȚİĲȐȠȣıȚȞ ੕ȡȠȢ țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ.”
279 șİȠİȓțİȜȠȢ ਩ıĲĮȚ] cf. șİȠİȓțİȜȩȢ ਥııȚ * at hDem. 159 281 cf. Od. 9.502–3
ȀȪțȜȦȥ, Į੅ țȑȞ ĲȓȢ ıİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ / ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૨ İ੅ȡȘĲĮȚ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘȞ
ਕȜĮȦĲȪȞ 283 ȝİȝȞȘȝȑȞȠȢ ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ * at Hes. Op. 623 ȖોȞ įૅ ਥȡȖȐȗİıșĮȚ
ȝİȝȞȒȝİȞȠȢ, ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ 284 cf. Il. 20.206 ĳĮı੿ ı੻ ȝ੻Ȟ ȆȘȜોȠȢ ਕȝȪȝȠȞȠȢ
਩țȖȠȞȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ 285 ~ 258, cf. [98] ੕ȡȠȢ țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ * at Od. 13.351;
hHerm. 228 286 ਙĳȡȠȞȚ șȣȝ૵Ț * at Od. 21.105
278 ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ * at 256 (where see apparatus), 274 279 ȖȘșȒıİȚȢ
੒ȡȩȦȞ] ȖȘșȒıȦ įૅ ੒ȡȩȦȞ * at Hes. fr. 302.21 280 ʌȠĲ੿ ૓ǿȜȚȠȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİııĮȞ] cf.
ʌȡȠĲ੿ ૓ǿȜȚȠȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİııĮȞ * at Il. 3.305; 8.499; 12.115; 13.724; 18.174; 23.64
281 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at 3 (where see apparatus), 122, 192, 200
282 ĳȓȜȠȞ ȣੂȩȞ * at 208 (where see apparatus) 283 ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ * also at Od.
10.516; Hes. Op. 316, 536 285 ੕ȡȠȢ țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ * also at hHerm. 228;
țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ alone * also at Od. 19.431 ੕ȡȠȢ … țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ; hAp. 225
276–7 ıȠ੿ įૅ ਥȖȫ, ੕ĳȡĮ † ĲĮ૨ĲĮ (੕ĳȡĮ țİ ĲĮ૨ĲĮ Barnes, ੕ĳȡĮ ĲȠȚ Į੣ ĲĮ Kamer-
beek) ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚȑȜșȦ, / ਥȢ ʌȑȝʌĲȠȞ ਩ĲȠȢ Į੣ĲȚȢ ਥȜİȪıȠȝĮȚ ȣੂઁȞ ਙȖȠȣıĮ ȍ :
vers. del. Hermann 279 ȖȘșȒıİȚȢ ȍ : ȖȘșȒıĮȚȢ p 280 ਙȟİȚȢ ȍ : ਙȟĮȚȢ p
ȝȚȞ Hermann : ȞȚȞ Ȍ : Ȟ૨Ȟ M 283 ıઃ Ȍ : ıȠȚ M 284 ĳȐıȚȞ Humbert : ĳȐıȚ
ȍ : ĳȐıșĮȚ Matthiae ਩țȖȠȞȠȞ Barnes : ਩ȖȖȠȞȠȞ ȍ
The moment you lay eyes on the youth, 278

you will be delighted at the sight—he will closely resemble a god—
and you will immediately take him off to windy Troy. 280
But if any human mortal asks you
what mother put your beloved son in her belly for you,
heed my advice and say to him:
‘People claim he is the offspring of a rosy-cheeked nymph,
one of those who inhabit this forest-clad mountain.’ 285
İੁ įȑ țİȞ ਥȟİȓʌȘȚȢ țĮ੿ ਥʌİȪȟİĮȚ ਙĳȡȠȞȚ șȣȝ૵Ț

ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ȝȚȖોȞĮȚ ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȦȚ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȚ,
ǽİȪȢ ıİ ȤȠȜȦıȐȝİȞȠȢ ȕĮȜȑİȚ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț.
İ੅ȡȘĲĮȓ ĲȠȚ ʌȐȞĲĮā ıઃ į੻ ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ
290 ੅ıȤİȠ, ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ, șİ૵Ȟ įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ ȝોȞȚȞ.”
੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıૅ ਵȚȟİ ʌȡઁȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİȞĲĮ.
ȤĮ૙ȡİ, șİȐ, ȀȪʌȡȠȚȠ ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİįȑȠȣıĮā
ıȑȠ įૅ ਥȖઅ ਕȡȟȐȝİȞȠȢ ȝİĲĮȕȒıȠȝĮȚ ਙȜȜȠȞ ਥȢ ੢ȝȞȠȞ.
288 ȕĮȜȑİȚ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț] cf. Od. 23.330 ਩ȕĮȜİ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț*
289 ~ hAp. 544 İ੅ȡȘĲĮȓ ĲȠȚ ʌȐȞĲĮā ıઃ į੻ ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ĳȪȜĮȟĮȚ 290 ੅ıȤİȠ, ȝȘįૅ
ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ] cf. Od. 11.251 ੅ıȤİȠ, ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȠȝȒȞȘȚȢ / șİ૵Ȟ įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ ȝોȞȚȞ] cf.
ǻȚઁȢ įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ ȝોȞȚȞ * at Od. 5.146 291 ਵȚȟİ ʌȡઁȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȩȞ * at Il. 23.868
292 ~ h. 10ǹ.4 ȤĮ૙ȡİ, șİȐ, ȈĮȜĮȝ૙ȞȠȢ ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİįȑȠȣıĮ 293 = h. 9.[8];
18.[11]
287 ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȦȚ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȚ * at 6 -Ƞȣ -ȘȢ (where see apparatus)

288 ȤȠȜȦıȐȝİȞȠȢ * at Il. 2.195; 15.68; 23.482; Od. 12.348; 18.25; Hes. Op. 53; fr.
54a.4 forms of ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț * also at Od. 24.539 ȥȠȜȩİȞĲĮ țİȡĮȣȞȩȞ;
Hes. Th. 515 ȕĮȜઅȞ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț /; fr. 51.2 ȕĮȜઅȞ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț /;
[Hes.] Sc. 422 291 ੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ı ૅ * at Il. 5.792; 15.142; Od. 1.96; 4.425, 767;
8.15; 15.130; 19.600; hAp. 275, 331; [Hes.] Sc. 338; cf. 143 / ੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ.
288 Ĳİ ȍ : ıİ Bī 290 ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ Hermann : ੑȞȩȝȘȞİ ȍ 292 ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȍ :

ਥȣțĲȚıȝȑȞȘȢ a 293 ıȑȠ West : ıİ૨ ȍ ਙȜȜȠȞ ਥȢ ੢ȝȞȠȞ ȍ : ਥȢ ਙȜȜȠȞ ੢ȝȞȠȞ f
But if you reveal the truth and rashly boast

that you slept with fair-garlanded Cytherea,
Zeus will be angry and will blast you with a smoking lightning-bolt.
You have been told everything. Think the matter over
and restrain yourself rather than mentioning my name;
beware the gods’ wrath!’ 290
With those words, she darted off into the windy sky.
Farewell, goddess, mistress of well-inhabited Cyprus!
I began with you, but will move on to another song.
ǹੁįȠȓȘȞ ȤȡȣıȠıĲȑĳĮȞȠȞ țĮȜ੽Ȟ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ

ਙȚıȠȝĮȚ, ਴ ʌȐıȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ țȡȒįİȝȞĮ ȜȑȜȠȖȤİȞ
İੁȞĮȜȓȘȢ, ੖șȚ ȝȚȞ ǽİĳȪȡȠȣ ȝȑȞȠȢ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਕȑȞĲȠȢ
ਵȞİȚțİȞ țĮĲ੹ ț૨ȝĮ ʌȠȜȣĳȜȠȓıȕȠȚȠ șĮȜȐııȘȢ
5 ਕĳȡ૵Ț ਩ȞȚ ȝĮȜĮț૵Ț. Ĳ੽Ȟ į੻ ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ ૡȍȡĮȚ
įȑȟĮȞĲૅ ਕıʌĮıȓȦȢ, ʌİȡ੿ įૅ ਙȝȕȡȠĲĮ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਪııĮȞā
țȡĮĲ੿ įૅ ਩ʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȚ ıĲİĳȐȞȘȞ İ੡ĲȣțĲȠȞ ਩șȘțĮȞ
țĮȜ੽Ȟ ȤȡȣıİȓȘȞ, ਥȞ į੻ ĲȡȘĲȠ૙ıȚ ȜȠȕȠ૙ıȚȞ
ਙȞșİȝૅ ੑȡİȚȤȐȜțȠȣ ȤȡȣıȠ૙ȩ Ĳİ ĲȚȝȒİȞĲȠȢā
10 įİȚȡોȚ įૅ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜોȚ țĮ੿ ıĲȒșİıȚȞ ਕȡȖȣĳȑȠȚıȚȞ
੖ȡȝȠȚıȚ ȤȡȣıȑȠȚıȚȞ ਥțȩıȝİȠȞ, Ƞੈıȓ ʌİȡ Į੝ĲĮȓ
ૡȍȡĮȚ țȠıȝİȓıșȘȞ ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ, ੒ʌʌȩĲૅ ੅ȠȚİȞ
ਥȢ ȤȠȡઁȞ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ șİ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ įȫȝĮĲĮ ʌĮĲȡȩȢ.
1 cf. Hes. Th. 193 / ਥț įૅ ਩ȕȘ ĮੁįȠȓȘ țĮȜ੽ șİȩȢ 2 ȜȑȜȠȖȤİȞ] cf. Th. 203 ĲĮȪĲȘȞ
įૅ ਥȟ ਕȡȤોȢ ĲȚȝ੽Ȟ ਩ȤİȚ ਱į੻ ȜȑȜȠȖȤİ 4 țĮĲ੹ ț૨ȝĮ ʌȠȜȣĳȜȠȓıȕȠȚȠ șĮȜȐııȘȢ * at
Cypr. fr. 9.8, p. 50 Bernabé 8 ĲȡȘĲȠ૙ıȚ ȜȠȕȠ૙ıȚȞ] cf. Il. 14.182 ਥȣĲȡȒĲȠȚıȚ
ȜȠȕȠ૙ıȚ /
3 ȝȑȞȠȢ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਕȑȞĲȠȢ] cf. ȝȑȞȠȢ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਕȑȞĲȦȞ * at Od. 5.478; 19.440; Hes. Th.
869; Op. 625 4 ʌȠȜȣĳȜȠȓıȕȠȚȠ șĮȜȐııȘȢ * at Il. 1.34; 9.182; 13.798;; Od.
13.85, 220; Hes. Op. 648; hMerc. 341.* 6 ʌİȡ੿ įૅ ਙȝȕȡȠĲĮ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਪııĮȞ * at
Il. 16.670 ʌ. į. Į. Į. ਪııȠȞ, 680 ʌ. į. Į. Į. ਪııİ; Od. 24.59 7 ~ Il. 3.336 =
15.480 = 16.137 = 22.123 = [Hes.] Sc. 136 țȡĮĲ੿ įૅ ਩ʌૅ ੁĳșȓȝȦȚ țȣȞȑȘȞ İ੡ĲȣțĲȠȞ
਩șȘțİȞ 8 țĮȜ੽Ȟ ȤȡȣıİȓȘȞ * at Il. 14.351; 18.562; Od. 5.232 = 10.545; 24.3
13 ȤȠȡઁȞ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ * at hMerc. 481 țĮ੿ įȫȝĮĲĮ ʌĮĲȡȩȢ * at Il. 18.141; [Hes.]
Sc. 471; cf. ʌȡઁȢ įȫȝĮĲĮ ʌĮĲȡȩȢ * at Od. 4.657; 15.459; 19.458; hCer. 107, 160,
180; įȫȝĮĲĮ ʌĮĲȡȩȢ only * at Od. 6.296; 14.319; Hes. Th. 40
tit. İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ a : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ Į੝ĲȒȞ Dbp : ਪĲİȡȠȢ ੢ȝȞȠȢ İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ Į੝ĲȒȞ At : ਩ĲȚ İੁȢ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ V : ĲȠ૨ Į੝ĲȠ૨ İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ Į੝Ĳ੽Ȟ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ M : om. Bī 1 ǹੁįȠȓȘȞ ȍ :
ੁįȠȓȘȞ DBī 4 ਵȞİȚțİȞ Ȍ : ਵȞİȚțİ a : İ੅ȞİȚțİȞ B : İ੅ȞİțİȞ V : ਵȞȣțİ M
7 İ੡ĲȣțĲȠȞ ȍ : İ੡ĲȚțĲȠȞ Ĭ 8 fort. ਥȞ įૅ İ੝ĲȡȘĲȠ૙ıȚ 9 ਙȞșİȝૅ ȍ : ਩Ȟșİȝૅ p
12 țȠıȝİȓıșȘȞ p : țȠıȝȓıșȘȞ Ĭ : țȠıȝȒıșȘȞ M ੒ʌʌȩĲૅ ੅ȠȚİȞ Ȍ : ੒ʌʌȩĲૅ ੅İȞ Ȇ :
੒ʌʌȩĲȚ ਷İȞ M
Of respectable, gold-crowned, beautiful Aphrodite

will I sing, to whom belong the walls of all of sea-bound
Cyprus, where the moist blast of the West Wind’s breeze
carried her over the billows of the loud-roaring sea
amid soft foam. The Seasons, wearing gold hair-bands, 5
welcomed her warmly, and dressed her in imperishable clothing;
and upon her immortal head they placed a beautiful, carefully crafted
garland of gold, and flowers made of mountain-copper
and precious gold in her pierced ear-lobes;
and about her soft neck and her brilliant breasts 10
they ornamented her with gold necklaces, the very ones with
which the two Seasons
themselves, wearing gold hair-bands, are ornamented
whenever they go
to a lovely dance of the gods and to their father’s house.
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ țȩıȝȠȞ ਩șȘțĮȞ,

15 ਷ȖȠȞ ਥȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢā Ƞ੄ įૅ ਱ıʌȐȗȠȞĲȠ ੁįȩȞĲİȢ
Ȥİȡıȓ Ĳૅ ਥįİȟȚȩȦȞĲȠ, țĮ੿ ਱ȡȒıĮȞĲȠ ਪțĮıĲȠȢ
İੇȞĮȚ țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ țĮ੿ Ƞ੅țĮįૅ ਙȖİıșĮȚ,
İੇįȠȢ șĮȣȝȐȗȠȞĲİȢ ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ.
ȤĮ૙ȡૅ, ਦȜȚțȠȕȜȑĳĮȡİ ȖȜȣțȣȝİȓȜȚȤİ, įઁȢ įૅ ਥȞ ਕȖ૵ȞȚ
20 ȞȓțȘȞ Ĳ૵Țįİ ĳȑȡİıșĮȚ, ਥȝ੽Ȟ įૅ ਩ȞĲȣȞȠȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ.
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅ țĮ੿ ıİ૙Ƞ țĮ੿ ਙȜȜȘȢ ȝȞȒıȠȝૅ ਕȠȚįોȢ.
14 ~ Il. 14.187 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ șȒțĮĲȠ țȩıȝȠȞ; cf. also h. 27.17
ȤĮȡȓİȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ țȩıȝȠȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ / 15 ਷ȖȠȞ ਥȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ] cf. Hes. Th. 285 /
੆țİĲૅ ਥȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ 18 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ * at h. 5.175
19 ȖȜȣțȣȝİȓȜȚȤİ] cf. Hes. Th. 206 ĲȑȡȥȚȞ Ĳİ ȖȜȣțİȡ੽Ȟ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȐ Ĳİ ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȘȞ Ĳİ
20 ਩ȞĲȣȞȠȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ * at Od. 12.183 (3rd-pl. imperfect indicative) 21 = hCer.
495 = hAp. 546 = hMerc. 580 = h. 10.6 = 19.49 = 28.18 = 29.14 = 30.19, cf. h.
25.7 = 27.22 = 33.19
17 țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ * at Il. 13.626 Ƞ੅țĮįૅ ਙȖİıșĮȚ * at Il. 3.404; Od. 10.35
15 ੁįȩȞĲİȢ Ȍ : ੁįȑıșĮȚ M 18 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȍ : ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ p

But after they covered her skin with all this jewelry,
they took her to the immortals. They, when they saw her,
welcomed her, 15
and extended their right hands in greeting; every male god prayed
that she would be his wedded wife and that he would take her home,
for they were astonished at the appearance of the violet-crowned
goddess of Cythera.
Farewell, round-eyed one, sweet and gentle! Grant that I carry off
the prize in this contest, and take good care of my song! 20
But I will mention you and another song as well.
108 Hymn 9: İੁȢ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ
Hymn 9: İੁȢ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ
ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ ੢ȝȞİȚ, ȂȠ૨ıĮ, țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ,

ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ, ੒ȝȩĲȡȠĳȠȞ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ,
ਸ਼ șૅ ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ਙȡıĮıĮ ȕĮșȣıȤȠȓȞȠȚȠ ȂȑȜȘĲȠȢ
૧ȓȝĳĮ įȚ੹ ȈȝȪȡȞȘȢ ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİȠȞ ਚȡȝĮ įȚȫțİȚ
5 ਥȢ ȀȜȐȡȠȞ ਕȝʌİȜȩİııĮȞ, ੖șૅ ਕȡȖȣȡȩĲȠȟȠȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ
ਸıĲĮȚ ȝȚȝȞȐȗȦȞ ਦțĮĲȘȕȩȜȠȞ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ.
țĮ੿ ıઃ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੢ĲȦ ȤĮ૙ȡİ șİĮȓ șૅ ਚȝĮ ʌ઼ıĮȚ ਕȠȚįોȚā
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅ ıȑ Ĳİ ʌȡ૵ĲĮ țĮ੿ ਥț ıȑșİȞ ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ,
ıȑȠ įૅ ਥȖઅ ਕȡȟȐȝİȞȠȢ ȝİĲĮȕȒıȠȝĮȚ ਙȜȜȠȞ ਥȢ ੢ȝȞȠȞ.
1–2 cf. Il. 20.71 ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘ ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ; hAp. 199 ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ
੒ȝȩĲȡȠĳȠȞ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȚ; h. 27.1–2 3 ȕĮșȣıȤȠȓȞȠȚȠ ȂȑȜȘĲȠȢ] cf. Il. 4.383 /
ਝıȦʌઁȞ … ȕĮșȪıȤȠȚȞȠȞ 7 = h. 14.6 9 = h. 5.293 = 18.11
5 ਕȡȖȣȡȩĲȠȟȠȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ * at Il. 2.766; 5.449, 517, 760; 7.58; 10.515; 24.758; Od.
17.251; Hes. fr. 185.9; hMerc. 327; hBacch. 19 7 țĮ੿ ıઃ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੢ĲȦ ȤĮ૙ȡİ * also
at h. 1.D11 West; hAp. 545; hMerc. 579; h. 16.5 … ਕȠȚįોȚ /; 18.10; 19.48 …
ਕȠȚįોȚ /; 21.5 … ਕȠȚįોȚ /; 26.11; 28.17 8 ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ * at hCer. 1; h. 11.1;
13.1; 16.1; 22.1; 26.1; 28.1
om. L tit. İੁȢ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ MĬ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ p : om. E 3 ȂȑȜȘĲȠȢ M :

ȂİȜȒĲȘȢ Ĭ : ȂȚȜȒĲȘȢ p 4 ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİȠȞ ȍ : ʌĮȖȤȡȪıȚȠȞ f 7 șૅ Ma : įૅ fp
8 Ĳİ om. Ȍ ıȑșİȞ ȍ : ıȑșૅ a 9 vers. del. Ilgen ıȑȠ West : ıİ૨ ȍ
Hymn 9: To Artemis 109
Hymn 9: To Artemis
Hymn Artemis, Muse, the sister of the far-shooter,

the virgin profuse in arrows, who was brought up together with Apollo!
She waters her horses in the reed-filled Meles
and drives her solid-gold chariot rapidly through Smyrna
toward vine-filled Claros, where Apollo of the silver bow 5
sits, waiting for the far-shooting goddess profuse in arrows.
So may you and all the other goddesses too take pleasure in this song!
I sing you first, and I begin my singing with you;
but after beginning with you, I will move on to another hymn.
A. As preserved in Ȍ:
ȀȣʌȡȠȖİȞો ȀȣșȑȡİȚĮȞ ਕİȓıȠȝĮȚ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚ
ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚȞā ਥĳૅ ੂȝİȡĲ૵Ț į੻ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȚ
Įੁİ੿ ȝİȚįȚȐİȚ, țĮ੿ ਥĳૅ ੂȝİȡĲઁȞ ĳȑȡİȚ ਙȞșȠȢ.
ȤĮ૙ȡİ, șİȐ, ȈĮȜĮȝ૙ȞȠȢ ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİįȑȠȣıĮ
5 țĮ੿ ʌȐıȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣā įઁȢ įૅ ੂȝİȡȩİııĮȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ.
B. As preserved in M:
ȀȣʌȡȠȖİȞો ȀȣșȑȡİȚĮȞ ਕİȓıȠȝĮȚ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚ
ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚȞā ਥĳૅ ੂȝİȡĲ૵Ț į੻ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȚ
Įੁİ੿ ȝİȚįȚȐİȚ, țĮ੿ ਥĳૅ ੂȝİȡĲઁȞ șȑİȚ ਙȞșȠȢ.
ȤĮ૙ȡİ, ȝȐțĮȚȡĮ, ȀȣșȒȡȘȢ ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİįȑȠȣıĮ
5 İੁȞĮȜȓȘȢ Ĳİ ȀȪʌȡȠȣā įઁȢ įૅ ੂȝİȡȩİııĮȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ.
2 ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚȞ] cf. Hes. Th. 206 ĲȑȡȥȚȞ Ĳİ ȖȜȣțİȡ੽Ȟ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȐ Ĳİ
ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȘȞ Ĳİ 3 Įੁİ੿ ȝİȚįȚȐİȚ] cf. Hes. Th. 200 ਱į੻ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚįȑĮ, ੖ĲȚ ȝȘįȑȦȞ
ਥȟİĳĮȐȞșȘ 4–5 cf. Hes. Th. 104 ȤĮȓȡİĲİ ĲȑțȞĮ ǻȚȩȢ, įȩĲİ įૅ ੂȝİȡȩİııĮȞ
ਕȠȚįȒȞ 4 ~ h. 5.292 ȤĮ૙ȡİ, șİȐ, ȀȪʌȡȠȚȠ ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİįȑȠȣıĮ 5 țĮ੿
ʌȐıȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ] cf. h. 6.2 ਴ ʌȐıȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ țȡȒįİȝȞĮ ȜȑȜȠȖȤİȞ 6 = h. 6.21
(where see apparatus)
2 į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚȞ * at Il. 9.261 / ਙȟȚĮ į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚ, cf. Il. 9.699 / ȝȣȡȓĮ į૵ȡĮ įȚįȠȪȢ
5 ੂȝİȡȩİııĮȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ * also at Od. 1.421; 18.304
om. L intra h. 11 et h. 12 hab. M tit. İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ MĬ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ

ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ p : om. T 1 ȀȣʌȡȠȖİȞો ȍ : ȣʌȡȠȖİȞો D Chalc 3 ĳȑȡİȚ Ȍ : șȑİȚ
M 4 șİȐ, ȈĮȜĮȝ૙ȞȠȢ Ȍ : ȝȐțĮȚȡĮ, ȀȣșȒȡȘȢ M ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȍ : ਥȣțĲȚıȝȑȞȘȢ a
5 țĮ੿ ʌȐıȘȢ Ȍ : İੁȞĮȜȓȘȢ Ĳİ M
A. As preserved in Ȍ:
I will sing of the Cyprus-born goddess of Cythera, who offers
mortals gentle gifts. A smile is always on her
attractive face, and she has an attractive blush in addition.
Farewell, goddess, ruler of well-settled Salamis
and of all Cyprus! Grant me an attractive song!
B. As preserved in M:
I will sing of the Cyprus-born goddess of Cythera, who offers
mortals gentle gifts. A smile is always on her
attractive face, and an attractive blush runs over it.
Farewell, blessed one, ruler of well-settled Cythera
and of sea-girt Cyprus! Grant me an attractive song!
112 Hymn 11: İੁȢ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ
Hymn 11: İੁȢ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ
ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ,

įİȚȞȒȞ, ਸȚ ıઃȞ ਡȡȘȧ ȝȑȜİȚ ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ਩ȡȖĮ
ʌİȡșȩȝİȞĮȓ Ĳİ ʌȩȜȘİȢ ਕȣĲȒ Ĳİ ʌĲȩȜİȝȠȓ Ĳİ,
țĮȓ Ĳૅ ਥȡȡȪıĮĲȠ ȜĮઁȞ ੁȩȞĲĮ Ĳİ ȞȚıȩȝİȞȩȞ Ĳİ.
5 ȤĮ૙ȡİ, șİȐ, įઁȢ įૅ ਙȝȝȚ ĲȪȤȘȞ İ੝įĮȚȝȠȞȓȘȞ Ĳİ.
1 ~ h. 28.1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ, țȣįȡ੽Ȟ șİȩȞ, ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ * at

h. 28.3 (where see apparatus) 2–3 ıઃȞ ਡȡȘȧ țĲȜ.] cf. Hes. Th. 936 ıઃȞ ਡȡȘȧ
ʌĲȠȜȚʌȩȡșȦȚ
3 forms of ਕȣĲȒ Ĳİ ʌĲȩȜİȝȠȓ Ĳİ * at Il. 1.492; 6.328; 16.63
om. L tit. İੁȢ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ MĬ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ p : om. TB 1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ȍ : ĮȜȜȐįૅ
D Chalc : ȂĮȜȜȐįૅ B 3 ʌȩȜȘİȢ MAQPac : ʌȩȜȚİȢ Ȍ ਕȣĲȒ Ȍ : ਕȣĲȠȓ M
ʌĲȩȜİȝȠȓ ȍ : ʌȩȜİȝȠȓ p 4 ਥȡȡȪıĮĲȠ Ȍ : ਥȡȡȪııĮĲȠ ǼȆ : ਥȡȪıĮĲȠ M
ȞȚıȩȝİȞȠȞ M : ȞȚııȩȝİȞȠȞ Ȍ 4 ਙȝȝȚ ȍ : ਙȝȚ Ǽ : ਙȝȚȞ T
Hymn 11: To Athena 113
Hymn 11: To Athena
I begin my song with Pallas Athena, the defender of our city,

a terrible goddess who, together with Ares, cares about military actions,
sacking cities, the battle-cry, and wars,
and who protects the troops as they go out and as they return.
Farewell, goddess! Grant us luck and good fortune! 5
114 Hymn 12: İੁȢ ૠǾȡĮȞ
Hymn 12: İੁȢ ૠǾȡĮȞ
ਾȡȘȞ ਕİȓįȦ ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȞ, ਴Ȟ Ĳȑțİ ૽ȇİȓȘ,

ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȕĮıȓȜİȚĮȞ, ਫ਼ʌİȓȡȠȤȠȞ İੇįȠȢ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ,
ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥȡȚȖįȠȪʌȠȚȠ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȩȞ Ĳİ
țȣįȡȒȞ, ਴Ȟ ʌȐȞĲİȢ ȝȐțĮȡİȢ țĮĲ੹ ȝĮțȡઁȞ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ
5 ਖȗȩȝİȞȠȚ ĲȓȠȣıȚȞ ੒ȝ૵Ȣ ǻȚ੿ ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȦȚ.
2 ਫ਼ʌİȓȡȠȤȠȞ * at Il. 6.208 = 11.784 Įੁ੻Ȟ ਕȡȚıĲİȪİȚȞ țĮ੿ ਫ਼ʌİȓȡȠȤȠȞ ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȜȜȦȞ
2 İੇįȠȢ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ * at Hes. Th. 908 -Į; frr. 10a.20 İੇįȠȢ ਩ҕȤҕ[ȠȣıĮȞ], 32 İҕੇҕįȠȢ
਩ȤȠȣıĮȢ, 45; 17a.7; 25.39; hCer. 315 3 ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥȡȚȖįȠȪʌȠȚȠ * at Hes. Th. 41; cf.
Il. 15.293 / ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥȡȚȖįȠȪʌȠȣ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȩȞ Ĳİ * at h. 5.40 -ȘȢ -Ƞȣ Ĳİ
(where see apparatus) 4 țĮĲ੹ ȝĮțȡઁȞ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ * at Il. 15.21; Od. 24.351;
ȝĮțȡઁȞ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ alone * at e.g. Il. 1.402; 2.48; 5.398; Od. 10.307; 15.43; Hes.
Th. 391; [Hes.] Sc. 466; h.Cer. 92; h. 19.27; Il.parv. fr. 32.4, p. 85 Bernabé
5 ǻȚ੿ ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȦȚ * at Il. 1.419; 11.773; Od. 7.164, 180; 19.365; 24.24; h. 1.4;
hCer. 485; hAp. 5
om. L tit. İੁȢ ૠǾȡĮȞ ȍ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ૠǾȡĮȞ p 1 ਾȡȘȞ Ȍ : ȡȘȞ D : ਾȡĮȞ M
2 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ Matthiae : ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȞ ȍ
Hymn 12: To Hera 115
Hymn 12: To Hera
I sing of gold-throned Hera, whom Rhea bore,

the queen of the immortals, whose beauty is overwhelming,
the famous sister and wife of Zeus of the loud
thunder, whom all the blessed ones on great Olympus
respect and honor as much as they do Zeus who delights in lightning. 5
116 Hymn 24: İੁȢ ૽ǿıĲȓȘȞ
Hymn 24: İੁȢ ૽ǿıĲȓȘȞ
૽ǿıĲȓȘ, ਸ਼ Ĳİ ਙȞĮțĲȠȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ

ȆȣșȠ૙ ਥȞ ਱ȖĮșȑȘȚ ੂİȡઁȞ įȩȝȠȞ ਕȝĳȚʌȠȜİȪİȚȢ,
Įੁİ੿ ı૵Ȟ ʌȜȠțȐȝȦȞ ਕʌȠȜİȓȕİĲĮȚ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਩ȜĮȚȠȞ.
਩ȡȤİȠ ĲȩȞįૅ ਕȞ੹ ȠੇțȠȞ † ਥʌȑȡȤİȠ † șȣȝઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ
5 ıઃȞ ǻȚ੿ ȝȘĲȚȩİȞĲȚ, ȤȐȡȚȞ įૅ ਚȝૅ ੕ʌĮııȠȞ ਕȠȚįોȚ.
1 ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ * at Il. 7.83; 20.295; hAp. 1 2 ȆȣșȠ૙ ਥȞ ਱ȖĮșȑȘȚ * at Od.

8.80; Hes. Th. 499 3 ਕʌȠȜİȓȕİĲĮȚ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਩ȜĮȚȠȞ * at Od. 7.107 4 șȣȝઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ
* at h. 5.102 (where see apparatus)
3 ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਩ȜĮȚȠȞ alone * also at Il. 23.281; Od. 6.79, 215
om. M et L tit. İੁȢ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȞ Ĭ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȞ p 1 ૽ǿıĲȓȘ Wolf : ૽ǼıĲȓȘ Ȍ
4 ਥʌȑȡȤİȠ Ȍ : ਪȞૅ ਩ȡȤİȠ Tucker : ਥȞȘȑĮ vel ਥȪĳȡȠȞĮ Barnes : fort. ਥʌȓĳȡȠȞĮ șȣȝઁȞ
਩ȤȠȣıĮ Ȍ : ș૨ȝĮ ȜĮȤȠ૨ıĮ Evelyn-White (servato ਥʌȑȡȤİȠ)
Hymn 24: To Hestia 117
Hymn 24: To Hestia
Hestia, you who take care of the sacred house

of King Apollo the far-shooter in holy Pytho—
liquid olive oil always drips from the locks of your hair!
Make your way through this house with a † make your way to † heart,
together with Zeus the counsellor, and bestow grace on my song! 5
Hymn 27: İੁȢ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ
ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ ਕİȓįȦ ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ,

ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ,
Į੝ĲȠțĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ȤȡȣıĮȩȡȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ,
਴ țĮĲૅ ੕ȡȘ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ țĮ੿ ਙțȡȚĮȢ ਱ȞİȝȠȑııĮȢ
5 ਙȖȡȘȚ ĲİȡʌȠȝȑȞȘ ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİĮ ĲȩȟĮ ĲȚĲĮȓȞİȚ,
ʌȑȝʌȠȣıĮ ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ ȕȑȜȘā ĲȡȠȝȑİȚ į੻ țȐȡȘȞĮ
ਫ਼ȥȘȜ૵Ȟ ੑȡȑȦȞ, ੁĮȤİ૙ įૅ ਩ʌȚ įȐıțȚȠȢ ੢ȜȘ
įİȚȞઁȞ ਫ਼ʌઁ țȜĮȖȖોȢ șȘȡ૵Ȟ, ĳȡȓııİȚ įȑ Ĳİ ȖĮ૙Į
ʌȩȞĲȠȢ Ĳૅ ੁȤșȣȩİȚȢ. ਴ įૅ ਙȜțȚȝȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ
10 ʌȐȞĲȘȚ ਥʌȚıĲȡȑĳİĲĮȚ șȘȡ૵Ȟ ੑȜȑțȠȣıĮ ȖİȞȑșȜȘȞ.
1–2 cf. Il. 20.70–1 ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȢ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒ / ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘ

ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ; h. 9.1–2 4–5 cf. Od. 6.102, 104 Ƞ੆Ș įૅ ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ İੇıȚ țĮĲૅ Ƞ੡ȡİĮ
ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ, / … / ĲİȡʌȠȝȑȞȘ țȐʌȡȠȚıȚ țĮ੿ ੩țİȓȘȚȢ ਥȜȐĳȠȚıȚ 5 ĲȩȟĮ ĲȚĲĮȓȞİȚ * at
hAp. 4
1 ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ * at h. 5.16 (where see apparatus) 2 forms of

ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ * at Il. 2.514; Hes. Th. 572; Op. 71; h. 28.3 ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ
ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ * at Hes. fr. 23a.21 [ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩ]ȜȠҕȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ; ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ alone * at Il.
18.319 -ȠȢ; forms of ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ alone * at 11; hCer. 424; hAp. 15; h. 9.6 4 ੕ȡȘ
ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ * at hMerc. 95 ਙțȡȚĮȢ ਱ȞİȝȠȑııĮȢ * at Od. 9.400; 16.365
7 ਫ਼ȥȘȜ૵Ȟ ੑȡȑȦȞ * at Il. 12.282; Od. 9.192; hAp. 23, 145 forms of įȐıțȚȠȢ ੢ȜȘ
* at Il. 12.282; Od. 5.470; hCer. 386 9 ਙȜțȚȝȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ * at Il. 5.529; 16.264
ਙȜțȚȝȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȠȞĲİȢ
om. M et L tit. İੁȢ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ Ĭ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ p : om. T 4 ਙțȡȚĮȢ

਱ȞİȝȠȑııĮȢ Ȍ : ਙțȡĮȢ ਱ȞȠȝȠȑııĮȢ Bī
Hymn 27: To Artemis
I sing of Artemis of the gold arrow-shafts and the loud cries,

a respectable virgin who shoots deer and is profuse in arrows,
the full sister of Apollo of the gold sword.
Among the shadowy mountains and the wind-swept peaks,
enjoying the hunt, she stretches her solid-gold bow, 5
firing pain-filled arrows. The tops of the lofty
mountains shiver; the thickly shaded woods resound
terrifyingly in response to the wild beasts’ roars; the earth and
the fish-filled sea shiver in fear. Meanwhile she stout-heartedly
makes her way in every direction, laying waste the race of wild beasts. 10
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌ੽Ȟ ĲİȡĳșોȚ șȘȡȠıțȩʌȠȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ,

İ੝ĳȡȒȞȘȚ į੻ ȞȩȠȞ, ȤĮȜȐıĮıૅ İ੝țĮȝʌȑĮ ĲȩȟĮ
਩ȡȤİĲĮȚ ਥȢ ȝȑȖĮ į૵ȝĮ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ ĳȓȜȠȚȠ
ĭȠȓȕȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ, ǻİȜĳ૵Ȟ ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ įોȝȠȞ,
15 ȂȠȣı૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ȋĮȡȓĲȦȞ țĮȜઁȞ ȤȠȡઁȞ ਕȡĲȣȞȑȠȣıĮ.
਩ȞșĮ țĮĲĮțȡİȝȐıĮıĮ ʌĮȜȓȞĲȠȞĮ ĲȩȟĮ țĮ੿ ੁȠȪȢ
ਲȖİ૙ĲĮȚ, ȤĮȡȓİȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ țȩıȝȠȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ,
ਥȟȐȡȤȠȣıĮ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ. Į੄ įૅ ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȘȞ ੕ʌૅ ੂİ૙ıĮȚ
ਫ਼ȝȞİ૨ıȚȞ ȁȘĲઅ țĮȜȜȓıĳȣȡȠȞ, ੪Ȣ Ĳȑțİ ʌĮ૙įĮȢ
20 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȕȠȣȜોȚ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ਩ȡȖȝĮıȚȞ ਩ȟȠȤૅ ਕȡȓıĲȠȣȢ.
ȤĮȓȡİĲİ, ĲȑțȞĮ ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿ ȁȘĲȠ૨Ȣ ਱ȣțȩȝȠȚȠā
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅȞ ਫ਼ȝȑȦȞ ‫ۃ‬Ĳİ‫ ۄ‬țĮ੿ ਙȜȜȘȢ ȝȞȒıȠȝૅ ਕȠȚįોȢ.
12 ȤĮȜȐıĮıૅ İ੝țĮȝʌȑĮ ĲȩȟĮ] cf. hAp. 6 ȕȓȠȞ Ĳૅ ਥȤȐȜĮııİ 13–20 cf. hAp. 186–
206, esp. 197–9 ĲોȚıȚ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੡Ĳૅ ĮੁıȤȡ੽ ȝİĲĮȝȑȜʌİĲĮȚ Ƞ੡Ĳૅ ਥȜȐȤİȚĮ, / ਕȜȜ੹ ȝȐȜĮ
ȝİȖȐȜȘ Ĳİ ੁįİ૙Ȟ țĮ੿ İੈįȠȢ ਕȖȘĲȒ / ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ ੒ȝȩĲȡȠĳȠȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȚ
16 țĮĲĮțȡİȝȐıĮıĮ … ĲȩȟĮ] cf. hAp. 8 ĲȩȟȠȞ ਕȞİțȡȑȝĮıİ 22 = h. 25.7 = 29.14
= 33.19
11 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌȒȞ * at e.g. Il. 15.147; 16.453; 24.155; Od. 1.293; 3.45; 4.412; Hes. Th.
799; hAp. 499 13 ਥȢ ȝȑȖĮ į૵ȝĮ * at Hes. Th. 410; fr. 105.3 ਥȢ ȝ[ȑȖĮ į૵ȝĮ;
ȝȑȖĮ į૵ȝĮ alone * at Od. 10.434; 23.146, 153 țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ ĳȓȜȠȚȠ * at Il.
5.357 14 ĭȠȓȕȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ at Il. 5.509; 9.405; Od. 9.201; hAp. 52; hMerc.
102, 425; [Hes.] Sc. 100 ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ įોȝȠȞ * at Od. 14.329 ૅǿșĮțોȢ ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ
įોȝȠȞ /; 19.399 ૅǿșĮțોȢ ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ įોȝȠȞ /; Hes. Th. 477 ȀȡȒĲȘȢ ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ įોȝȠȞ /;
cf. Il. 22.501 ʌȓȠȞĮ įȘȝȩȞ /; Od. 14.428 ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ įȘȝȩȞ 17 ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ țȩıȝȠȞ *
at h. 6.14 21 ȤĮȓȡİĲİ, ĲȑțȞĮ ǻȚȩȢ * at Hes. Th. 104; h. 25.6
13 țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ p : ȝİĲ੹ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ Ĭ 14 ਥȢ Ernesti : İੁȢ Ȍ 18 Į੄ įૅ

ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ ੕ııĮȞ ੂİ૙ıĮȚ Hermann 19 ਫ਼ȝȞİ૨ıȚȞ asȆ : ਫ਼ȝȞİ૨ıȚ Ȍ 22 ਥȖઅȞ Ȍ :
ਥȖઅ AQ ‫ۦ‬Ĳİۧ add. Barnes
But after the beast-spotting goddess profuse in arrows has enjoyed

herself
and is in a good mood, she unstrings her easily bent bow
and goes to the large house of her beloved brother
Phoebus Apollo, to the rich land of Delphi,
to arrange a lovely dance by the Muses and the Graces. 15
There she hangs up her back-bent bow and her arrows
and leads the way, with beautiful adornment about her skin,
guiding the dances. Producing an immortal voice, the girls
hymn Leto of the beautiful ankles, telling how she bore children
who are far and away the best of the immortals in counsel and deeds. 20
Farewell, children of Zeus and fair-haired Leto!
Hymn 28: İੁȢ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ
ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ, țȣįȡ੽Ȟ șİȩȞ, ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ,

ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ ʌȠȜȪȝȘĲȚȞ ਕȝİȓȜȚȤȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ,
ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ ਕȜțȘȑııĮȞ,
ȉȡȚĲȠȖİȞો, Ĳ੽Ȟ Į੝ĲઁȢ ਥȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ
5 ıİȝȞોȢ ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ, ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ
ȤȡȪıİĮ ʌĮȝĳĮȞȩȦȞĲĮā ıȑȕĮȢ įૅ ਩Ȥİ ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ੒ȡ૵ȞĲĮȢ
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ. ਴ į੻ ʌȡȩıșİȞ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ
ਥııȣȝȑȞȦȢ ੭ȡȠȣıİȞ ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ țĮȡȒȞȠȣ
ıİȓıĮıૅ ੑȟઃȞ ਙțȠȞĲĮā ȝȑȖĮȢ įૅ ਥȜİȜȓȗİĲૅ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȢ
10 įİȚȞઁȞ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȕȡȓȝȘȢ ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ, ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ ȖĮ૙Į
1 ~ h. 11.1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ 2 ਕȝİȓȜȚȤȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ

਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ * at Il. 9.572 ਕȝİȓȜȚȤȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ 3 ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ * at h. 27.2
(where see apparatus) ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ] cf. Il. 6.305 / ʌȩĲȞȚૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘ ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚ;
h. 11.1* 4 Į੝ĲઁȢ ਥȖİȓȞĮĲȠ] cf. Il. 5.880 Į੝ĲઁȢ ਥȖİȓȞĮȠ* 5 ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ
਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ * at Hes. fr. 343.19 8–9 ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ țĮȡȒȞȠȣ / … ā ȝȑȖĮȢ įૅ
ਥȜİȜȓȗİĲૅ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȢ] cf. Il. 1.530 = h. 1.D6 West țȡĮĲઁȢ ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠā ȝȑȖĮȞ įૅ
ਥȜȑȜȚȗİȞ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ 10–11 ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ ȖĮ૙Į / ıȝİȡįĮȜȑȠȞ ੁȐȤȘıİȞ ~ Hes. Th. 839–
40 ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ ȖĮ૙Į / ıȝİȡįĮȜȑȠȞ țȠȞȐȕȘıİ
1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ * also at 16 ȆĮȜȜ੹Ȣ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘ (where see apparatus); Il.

1.200; 3.42; 13.300 forms of țȣįȡ੽Ȟ șİȩȞ * at Hes. Th. 442; hCer. 179, 292
ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ * also at h. 9.7 (where see apparatus) 4 ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ * at 16; h.
5.202 (where see apparatus) 5 ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ * also at [Hes.] Sc. 238
ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ ਩ȤȠȞĲİȢ; cf. Il. 7.193 ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİĮ įȪȦ / 6 ıȑȕĮȢ įૅ ਩Ȥİ
ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ੒ȡ૵ȞĲĮȢ] cf. Il. 23.815 șȐȝȕȠȢ įૅ ਩Ȥİ ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ਝȤĮȚȠȪȢ /; Hes. fr. 75.8
ș]ȐȝȕȠȢ įૅ ਩Ȥİ ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ੒ȡ૵ȞĲĮ[Ȣ / 7 ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ * at h. 5.23 (where see
apparatus) 9 ੑȟઃȞ ਙțȠȞĲĮ * at Il. 21.590; Od. 14.531; 21.340
om. M et L tit. İੁȢ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ Ĭ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ਝșȘȞ઼Ȟ p 1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ Ȍ : ĮȜȜȐįૅ D

Chalc : ȂĮȜȜȐįૅ B 5 ĲİȪȤİૅ Ȍ : ĲİȪȤૅ AQ 10 ਫ਼ʌઁ ȕȡȓȝȘȢ Ilgen: ਫ਼ʌૅ
ੑȕȡȓȝȘȢ Ȍ : ਫ਼ʌૅ ੑȝȕȡȓȝȘȢ f
Hymn 28: To Athena
I begin my song with Pallas Athena, a famous goddess,

gleaming-eyed, resourceful, and hard-hearted,
a respectable virgin who valiantly defends our city,
Tritogeneia, to whom Zeus the counsellor himself gave birth
from his sacred head, wearing gold war-gear 5
that flashed light in every direction; the immortals were all awestruck
when they saw her. She quickly sprang in front of Zeus
the aegis-bearer, emerging from his immortal head,
brandishing her sharp javelin. Great Olympus trembled
hard in response to the might of the gleaming-eyed goddess; the earth 10
ıȝİȡįĮȜȑȠȞ ੁȐȤȘıİȞ, ਥțȚȞȒșȘ įૅ ਙȡĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȢ

țȪȝĮıȚ ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȚıȚ țȣțȫȝİȞȠȢ, ਩ıȤİĲȠ įૅ ਚȜȝȘ
ਥȟĮʌȓȞȘȢ, ıĲોıİȞ įૅ ૽ȊʌİȡȓȠȞȠȢ ਕȖȜĮઁȢ ȣੂȩȢ
੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ੩țȪʌȠįĮȢ įȘȡઁȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ, İੁıȩĲİ țȠȪȡȘ
15 İ੆ȜİĲૅ ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ੭ȝȦȞ șİȠİȓțİȜĮ ĲİȪȤȘ
ȆĮȜȜ੹Ȣ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘā ȖȒșȘıİ į੻ ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ.
țĮ੿ ıઃ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੢ĲȦ ȤĮ૙ȡİ, ǻȚઁȢ ĲȑțȠȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠā
14 ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ੩țȪʌȠįĮȢ * at Il. 5.732 18 = hCer. 495 = hAp. 546 = hMerc. 580 =
h. 6.21 = 10.6 = 19.49 = = 29.14 = 30.19, cf. h. 25.7 = 27.22 = 33.19
13 ૽ȊʌİȡȓȠȞȠȢ ਕȖȜĮઁȢ ȣੂȩȢ * at hCer. 26; Eumel. fr. 3.3, p. 109 Bernabé; ਕȖȜĮઁȢ
ȣੂȩȢ alone * also at e.g. Il. 2.736; 5.79; Od. 4.21, 188; hMerc. 314 16 ȆĮȜȜ੹Ȣ
ਝșȘȞĮȓȘ * at 1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ (where see apparatus); e.g. Il. 10.275; 11.438;
15.614; Od. 4.828; 13.190, 252; [Hes.] Sc. 126 ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ * at 4 (where see
apparatus) 17 țĮ੿ ıઃ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੢ĲȦ ȤĮ૙ȡİ * at h. 1.D11 West; hAp. 545; hMerc.
579; h. 9.7; 14.6; 16.5; 18.10; 19.48; 21.5; 26.11
12 ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȚıȚ Ĭ : ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȞıȚ p : ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȣıȚ Qpc įૅ ȉ Chalc : șૅ Ȍ

14 įȘȡઁȞ Ȍ : įİȚȡઁȞ EV 16 ȆĮȜȜ੹Ȣ Ȍ : ȆĮȜ੹Ȣ BVP
resounded loudly all about; the sea was shaken and

stirred up into purple waves; the salt-water was abruptly
frozen in place; and Hyperion’s splendid son restrained
his swift-footed horses for a long time, until the girl
removed the godlike armor from her immortal shoulders: 15
she was Pallas Athena, and Zeus the counsellor was pleased.
And so farewell, child of aegis-bearing Zeus!
126 Hymn 29: İੁȢ ૽ǿıĲȓȘȞ
Hymn 29: İੁȢ ૽ǿıĲȓȘȞ
૽ǿıĲȓȘ, ਴ ʌȐȞĲȦȞ ਥȞ įȫȝĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ

ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ Ĳİ șİ૵Ȟ ȤĮȝĮ੿ ਥȡȤȠȝȑȞȦȞ Ĳૅ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
ਪįȡȘȞ ਕȓįȚȠȞ ਩ȜĮȤİȢ ʌȡİıȕȘȓįĮ ĲȚȝȒȞ,
țĮȜઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ ȖȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ĲȚȝȒȞā Ƞ੝ Ȗ੹ȡ ਙĲİȡ ıȠ૨
5 İੁȜĮʌȓȞĮȚ șȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚȞ, ੆Ȟૅ Ƞ੝ ʌȡȫĲȘȚ ʌȣȝȐĲȘȚ Ĳİ
૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ ਕȡȤȩȝİȞȠȢ ıʌȑȞįİȚ ȝİȜȚȘįȑĮ ȠੇȞȠȞ.
țĮ੿ ıȪ ȝȠȚ, ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲĮ, ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿ ȂĮȚȐįȠȢ ȣੂȑ,
8 ਙȖȖİȜİ Ĳ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ, ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚ, į૵ĲȠȡ ਦȐȦȞ,
10 ੆ȜĮȠȢ ੫Ȟ ਥʌȐȡȘȖİ ıઃȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ Ĳİ ĳȓȜȘȚ Ĳİ
11 ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚā ਕȝĳȩĲİȡȠȚ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ
9 ȞĮȓİĲİ įȫȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ, ĳȓȜĮ ĳȡİı੿Ȟ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȚıȚȞ
12 İੁįȩĲİȢ, ਪȡȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ, ȞȩȦȚ șૅ ਪıʌİıșİ țĮ੿ ਸ਼ȕȘȚ.
ȤĮ૙ȡİ, ȀȡȩȞȠȣ șȪȖĮĲİȡ, ıȪ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ૽ǼȡȝોȢā
Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅȞ ਫ਼ȝȑȦȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ਙȜȜȘȢ ȝȞȒıȠȝૅ ਕȠȚįોȢ.
2 = Il. 5.442 4 țĮȜઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ ȖȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ĲȚȝȒȞ] cf. h. 5.29 ĲોȚ į੻ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ǽİઃȢ
į૵țİ țĮȜઁȞ ȖȑȡĮȢ ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚȠ 9–12 ĳȓȜĮ … ਕȜȜȒȜȠȚıȚȞ / İੁįȩĲİȢ] cf. Od.
3.277 ĳȓȜĮ İੁįȩĲİȢ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȚıȚȞ / 13 ȤĮ૙ȡİ, ȀȡȩȞȠȣ șȪȖĮĲİȡ = Aristonous ii.11,
p. 165 Powell 14 = h. 25.7 = 27.22 = 33.19
1 ਥȞ įȫȝĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ * at Il. 24.281; Od. 21.33 6 ȝİȜȚȘįȑĮ ȠੇȞȠȞ * at Il.

10.579; Od. 14.78 = 16.52; 18.151, 426 7 ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿ ȂĮȚȐįȠȢ ȣੂȑ * at hMerc. 1
ȣੂȩȞ, 235 ȣੂȩȢ, 301, 446, 579; h. 18.10 8 ਙȖȖİȜİ Ĳ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ] cf. hMerc. 3 =
h. 18.3 ਙȖȖİȜȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ* į૵ĲȠȡ ਦȐȦȞ * at Od. 8.335; hMerc. 12
11 ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ * at e.g. Il. 4.45; Od. 1.67; 18.136; 22.414; Hes. Th. 416;
fr. 22.5; hCer. 480; hAp. 167; h. 33.6
om. M et L tit. İੁȢ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȞ Ĭ : İੁȢ Ĳ੽Ȟ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȞ p 1 ૽ǿıĲȓȘ Wolf : ૽ǼıĲȓȘ Ȍ
3 ਩ȜĮȤİȢ p : ਩ȜĮȤİ Ĭ 6 ૽ǿıĲȓȘ Ȍ : ૽ǼıĲȓȘ f 9 post 11 transp. Martin; lac.
post 9 ordine versuum servato stat. Wolf 11 ૽ǿıĲȓȘ Ȍ : ૽ǼıĲȓȘ vel ૽ǼıĲȓૉ f
12 ਪȡȝĮĲĮ West : ਩ȡȖȝĮĲĮ vel ਪȡȖȝĮĲĮ Ȍ șૅ ȆsApcQ : Ĳૅ Ȍ 14 ਥȖઅȞ Ȍ :
ਥȖઅ AQ
Hymn 29: To Hestia
Hestia, you who in the lofty houses of all the

immortal gods and of all human beings who come and go upon
the earth
have been allotted an eternal seat, as a distinction that belongs to
you as eldest,
endowed with a fine mark of honor and distinction—for mortals
hold no feasts
without you, where someone does not begin by pouring 5
a libation of honey-sweet wine to Hestia first and last.
And you too, Argeiphontes, son of Zeus and Maia,
messenger of the blessed ones, god of the gold staff, giver of
good gifts— 8
be merciful and lend me your assistance, along with respectable,
beloved 10
Hestia! For you both inhabit the fine houses of human beings 11
who dwell upon the earth, and you have friendly feelings toward 9
one another, and are fine sources of security, and are devoted to
intelligence and youth. 12
Farewell, daughter of Cronus, you and Hermes of the gold staff!
Commentary
1–6 represent the voice of ‘the poet’ (1 ȝȠȚ), whose request to the Muse for
information appears to be answered in 7–291, or perhaps only in 53–291.
1–2 ȂȠ૨ıȐ ȝȠȚ țĲȜ: An initial invocation of the Muse or the Muses is a
common feature of early epic proems (e.g. Il. 1.1 (called șİȐ); 2.761;
11.218 = 14.508 = 16.112 = Il. cyc. 1.1, p. 64 Bernabé; Od. 1.1; Hes. Op.
1; Th. 104, 114–15; Cat. fr. 1.14; Theb. fr. 1, p. 22 Bernabé (called șİȐ);
Epigoni fr. 1, p. 30 Bernabé; Il. parv. fr. 1.1, p. 76 Bernabé (quoted below);
adesp. PMG 938(e), the first of the two combined anonymous hexameters
on Berlin 2285 (ARV2 431.48 and 1653; Douris; ca. 490–480 BCE)
MOIȈA MOI; hHerm. 1 ૽ǼȡȝોȞ ੢ȝȞİȚ, ȂȠ૨ıĮ, ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿ ȂĮȚȐįȠȢ ȣੂȩȞ; h.
9.1; 17.1; 19.1; 20.1; 31.1; 32.1; 33.1; cf. Alcm. PMG 27.1; Hippon. fr.
128.1 Degani (parodic); Simon. fr. 92.1 West2; Hermipp. fr. 63.1 (parodic);
Call. fr. 86.1; Race (1992) 20. For the Muses, cf. Hes. Th. 1–115, 915–17
with West’s nn. and his p. 32; Gantz (1993) 54–5.
The line up to the caesura is identical to the opening of the Little Iliad
ȂȠ૨ıȐ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞȞİʌİ ਩ȡȖĮ, Ĳ੹ ȝȒĲૅ ਥȖȑȞȠȞĲȠ ʌȐȡȠȚșİ (fr. 1.1, p. 76 Bernabé),
although the more significant echo is of Hes. Op. 521 (quoted and dis-
cussed below). As Richardson on hDem. 1 ǻȒȝȘĲȡૅ ਱ȪțȠȝȠȞ ıİȝȞ੽Ȟ șİઁȞ
ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ observes, ‘The first word of an epic poem often formed a
kind of title, giving the main subject’ (e.g. Il. 1.1 ȝોȞȚȞ ਙİȚįİ, șİȐ,
ȆȘȜȘȚȐįİȦ ਝȤȚȜોȠȢ; Od. 1.1 ਙȞįȡĮ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞȞİʌİ, ȂȠ૨ıĮ, ʌȠȜȪĲȡȠʌȠȞ, ੔Ȣ
ȝȐȜĮ ʌȩȜȜĮ; Theb. fr. 1, p. 22 Bernabé ਡȡȖȠȢ ਙİȚįİ, șİȐ, ʌȠȜȣįȓȥȚȠȞ,
਩ȞșİȞ ਙȞĮțĲİȢ; cf. hHerm. 1 (quoted above); Matro SH 534.1 = fr. 1.1
Olson–Sens įİ૙ʌȞȐ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞȞİʌİ, ȂȠ૨ıĮ, ʌȠȜȪĲȡȠĳĮ țĮ੿ ȝȐȜĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ (a
parody of Od. 1.1); West on Hes. Th. 1). Here, on the other hand, ਩ȡȖĮ
ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ is reserved for the end of the verse, and the signif-
icance of the phrase—which seems initially to refer to the goddess' general
sphere of interest in the world, like in ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਡȡȘȠȢ in 10—emerges only
gradually; cf. below.
਩ȞȞİʌİ: The verb (poetic; in the plural generally in the metrically iden-
tical aorist form ਩ıʌİĲİ) is conventional in proems (e.g. Od. 1.1* (quoted);
Hes. Op. 2; Th. 114 ĲĮ૨ĲȐ ȝȠȚ ਩ıʌİĲİ ȂȠ૨ıĮȚ ૅȅȜȪȝʌȚĮ įȫȝĮĲૅ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȚ;
130 Commentary
Cat. fr. 1.14; Il. parv. fr. 1.1*, p. 76 Bernabé (quoted above); h. 19.1; 32.1;
33.1).
਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ echoes Hes. Op. 521 (of a sheltered
young woman; cf. 14–15 n.) Ƞ੡ ʌȦ ਩ȡȖૅ İੁįȣ૙Į ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ,
where ‘the deeds of Aphrodite’ is a periphrasis for ‘sex’. But here the
phrase appears momentarily to refer to the exercise of the near-universal
power described in 2–5. Contrast 6 with n., 9*, 21. Only at 45–52 does it
emerge that the ਩ȡȖĮ in question are Aphrodite’s adventures with Anchises
and their consequences.
ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ: For the connection between Aphrodite’s
gold jewelry and her overwhelming seductiveness in the main narrative
line of the Hymn, cf. 87–90 n. But the epithet might simultaneously be
taken to refer to the enormous quantities of temple dedications that belong
to the goddess as object of cult, hence in part the reference to Cyprus at the
beginning of 2 (see below, and cf. 6 n. on the epithet Cytherea). The com-
bination of the epithet with Aphrodite’s name is formular but not Homeric
(cf. 9 and the other passages cited in the second apparatus; all in erotic
contexts); cf. the Homeric Ȥȡȣıો ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ / and variants thereof (e.g. 93
with the second apparatus; Il. 5.427; Od. 3.14); 16–17 n. (on objects be-
longing to the gods regularly described as made of gold). The hiatus re-
flects the development of the form from an original ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȚૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ
/. The adjective is attested in Homer in the formulaic phrases ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȚȠ
ȂȣțȒȞȘȢ / (Il. 7.180; 11.46; Od. 3.304) and ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȢ ʌȠȜȣȤȐȜțȠȢ (Il.
10.315 (of Dolon); 18.289 (of Troy)); subsequently almost exclusively
poetic (e.g. Archil. fr. 19.1 West2; Pi. P. 4.53; 6.8). Cf. 18 n. (a variant
reading in a different sedes); Boedeker (1974) 26.
2 is echoed at A.R. 1.850 ȀȪʌȡȚȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİȞ / (of the
Lemnian women); see Introduction 3.
ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ: Aphrodite is called ȀȪʌȡȚȢ elsewhere in early epic only in
Iliad 5 (330, 422, 458 ~ 883 ȀȪʌȡȚįĮ*, 760) and at Hes. fr. 124.2 (quoted
in 6 n.). Here the use of the title—emphasized via enjambment (cf. 22)—
serves in part to prepare for the goddess’ retreat at 58–9 (where see nn.) to
her temple in the city of Paphos to beautify herself. But the fact that Aph-
rodite is hailed as ‘queen of well-settled Cyprus’ again in the poet’s final
salutation of her, in the penultimate verse of the Hymn (292 with n.), sug-
gests a connection to his own social and religious world; or perhaps h. 5
served originally as a prooimion for the Cypria. For Aphrodite’s associa-
tion with Cyprus, see also Od. 8.362–3 (quoted in 58–68 n.); h. 6.2; 10.1;
Hes. Th. 193, 199 (explaining the related name ȀȣʌȡȠȖİȞȒȢ (‘born on
Cyprus’) as referring to the fact that she first set foot on land on the island,
after having been carried about the sea in the foam (aphros) produced by
Sky’s genitals after he was castrated by Cronus (Th. 188–99), a detail that
receives no mention in the hAphr., which presents Aphrodite as Zeus'

daughter; cf. 2–3 n. on ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ țĲȜ., 81 n.; h. 6 introductory n.).
2–52 ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ țĲȜ: A lengthy hymnic descriptio; the narrative proper
begins at 53 (where see n.).
2–3 ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ țĲȜ: The use of a relative clause to offer more specific
information about the subject of the song as defined in its opening line or
lines is a standard feature of early epic proems (e.g. Il. 1.2–5; Od. 1.1–2;
Hes. Th. 2–4; hDem. 2–8; hAp. 2; hHerm. 3–5; h. 6.2–3; 9.3–6; 10.1–2; for
other typical features, see 1–2 n.); cf. 14 (from the embedded Athena-
hymn), 22, 24 (the beginning of the embedded Hestia-hymn), 37 with n.,
41 (the beginning of the embedded Hera-hymn). Here the focus is entirely
on Aphrodite’s power. For ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ, cf. Il. 15.144 (of Iris) ਸ਼ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚ*;
Od. 10.74 (of Odysseus) ੖Ȣ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ*.
ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİȞ represents a combination of two epic phrases,
ȖȜȣțઃȢ ੆ȝİȡȠȢ ਸ਼ȚȡİȚ / et sim. (Il. 3.446; 14.328; Od. 22.500; hHerm. 422)
and ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİ(Ȟ) / (Il. 23.14; Od. 23.144). The noun-adjective combina-
tion in the accusative is attested elsewhere in early epic only in the phrase
ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț, for which cf. 45 with n., 53, 143; Il. 14.198
(quoted below). For the personified Himeros (‘Desire’) as an attendant of
Aphrodite, see Hes. Th. 201 with West ad loc.
੯ȡıİ and ਥįĮȝȐııĮĲȠ are ‘timeless’ hymnic aorists, in that they de-
scribe the goddess’ habitual mode(s) of operation. Whether the actions in
question took place at a particular point in time, leading to the current situ-
ation, or have been and will be repeated again and again, is a meaningless
distinction; note the repeated Ĳİ, and cf. Pelliccia (1985) 130–3; Faulkner
(2006) 66–7. Neither verb need be augmented for the line to scan, and the
correct reading might well be ੕ȡıİ / … Ĳİ įĮȝȐııĮĲȠ, the augments (op-
tional in hymnic aorists) having been added in an attempt to standardize
and thus ‘correct’ the text; cf. 15 ਩ȡȖૅ ਥįȓįĮȟİȞ with n. The verbs might be
understood as having a tellingly different sense: Aphrodite ‘subdues’ mor-
tal creatures, but she merely ‘rouses up desire against’ the gods (for ਥʌȓ +
੕ȡȞȣȝȚ in this sense, e.g. Il. 7.163–7; 12.293; Od. 21.100), implying incon-
sistent success and setting up the series of exceptions to her power listed in
7–33. But the first verb is better taken as describing the goddess’ tech-
nique, the second its result; cf. 7 n., 17 įȐȝȞĮĲĮȚ with n., 56–7 n., 82
ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ with n., 251 įȐȝȞĮıțİ; Il. 14.198–9, where Hera asks
Aphrodite for ੆ȝİȡȠȢ, ‘with which you overcome (įȐȝȞĮȚ) all immortals
and mortal people’.
3–6 The second half of the catalogue expands without advance notice again
and again, bringing out the extraordinary extent of Aphrodite’s power. At
first, the poet appears to offer a simple opposition between gods (2) and
132 Commentary
human beings (3). But this is then converted into an opposition between
gods, on the one hand, and other—implicitly mortal—creatures (3–5), on
the other, with the non-human creatures divided between birds and beasts
(4), and the beasts further divided into those found on the land and in the
sea (5). ʌ઼ıȚ at the beginning of 6 (where see n.) thus comes as a trium-
phant cap to the entire, unexpectedly extensive list.
3 ĳ૨ȜĮ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ: i.e. ‘all human beings everywhere in all
their diversity’, a universal declaration matching șȘȡȓĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ at the end of
4. For the expression, cf. 129 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȝİĲ੹ ĳ૨Ȝ(Į) with n., ĳ૨ȜĮ
ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ (Il. 9.130, 272), ĳ૨ȜĮ șİ૵Ȟ (e.g. Il. 15.54), ĳ૨ȜĮ īȚȖȐȞĲȦȞ (Od.
7.206), ĳ૨ȜĮ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (hHerm. 578). For the opposition between
human beings and ‘beasts’, cf. 122–4 with nn. For the emphatic description
of human beings as creatures subject to death (viz. as the gods are not; a
common epic formulation), cf. 35 with n., 39 with n., 46–52 with nn., 122,
200, 281.
4–5 For fish, land-animals, and birds all subject to Aphrodite’s power, see
S. fr. 941.9–11; E. Hipp. 447–50; and cf. h. 30.3–4 (Earth, mother of all,
who nourishes) ਱ȝ੻Ȟ ੖ıĮ ȤșȩȞĮ į૙ĮȞ ਥʌȑȡȤİĲĮȚ ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ ʌȩȞĲȠȞ / ਱įૅ ੖ıĮ
ʌȦĲ૵ȞĲĮȚ (‘everything that moves on the bright land, or the sea, or that
flies’). For beasts in particular, cf. 68–74, where Aphrodite’s appearance
on the slopes of Mount Ida causes the local wolves, lions, bears, and wild-
cats, referred to there as șોȡİȢ (68, cf. 18, 123), to slink off to their lairs to
mate. Here a much wider range of creatures is in question, and the term
șȘȡȓĮ is used instead, with ʌȠȜȜȐ—stressing quantity, as at Od. 5.422 and
Cypr. fr. 9.12, p. 50 Bernabé (both quoted in the first apparatus), further
emphasizing the extent of the goddess’ power—in place of įİȚȞȐ in Hes.
Th. 582 (quoted in the first apparatus), on which 5 appears otherwise to be
modeled, and where the poet stresses the awful emotional impact of the
images on the headband worn by the ruinous first woman. (The manu-
scripts of Hesiod have ʌȠȜȜȐ, as in the Hymn, while įİȚȞȐ is preserved
only in a papyrus; which version of the Theogony the Hymn-poet knew is
impossible to say.)
4 is one of only two verses in the hAphr. with a fourth-foot caesura (al-
so 271); see Introduction 5.
įȚİȚʌȑĲİĮȢ: Elsewhere in early hexameter poetry, the adjective—
which the evidence of Alcm. PMG 3.66–7 ĮੁȖȜȐ[İ]ȞĲȠȢ ਕıĲȒȡ / ੩ȡĮȞ૵
įȚĮȚʌİĲȒȢ (Laconian) suggests is best written įȚİȚ-, at least in Homer and
Hesiod, and thus presumably here as well, rather than įȚȚ-, with the MSS—
appears exclusively in the genitive singular in the formulaic phrase
įȚİȚʌİĲȑȠȢ ʌȠĲĮȝȠ૙Ƞ, filling the space from the feminine caesura to the end
of the line (e.g. Il. 16.174; Od. 4.477, 581; Hes. fr. 320). The etymology of
the word is obscure, as is how the Iliad- and Odyssey-poets and Hesiod
understood it; cf. LfgrE s. įȚȚʌİĲȒȢ; Treu (1958) 260–70; Szemerényi
(1974) 144–5; Renehan (1972) 93–6; (1975) 65. Here it appears in a differ-
ent form and sedes than elsewhere, and the contrast with land- and sea-
creatures in the rest of 4–5 suggests that it be taken ‘that fly through the
sky’ (as if derived from ǻȚȓ + ʌȑĲȠȝĮȚ; see Hinge (2006) 247–8) rather than
‘that fall from the sky’ (as if the second element were from ʌȓʌĲȦ), i.e.
‘that swoop down and settle on the ground’ (thus Allen, Halliday, and
Sikes (1963)). If that is correct, the accent belongs on the antepenult rather
than on the penult (as also in Alcman). M’s įȚȚʌİĲȑĮ represents assimila-
tion to the case of șȘȡȓĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ.
6 resumes the content of the relative clause that begins at 2 ਸ਼ Ĳİ (note in
particular ʌ઼ıȚ, ‘to all of these’, i.e. gods (2), humans (3), and beasts of
every sort (4–5)). But the effect of the intervening material is that—in
contrast to 1 ਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ (where see n.)—਩ȡȖĮ …
ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ here can only be understood as a periphrasis for
‘sex’, as again in 9, 21 (cf. 10; contrast 11, 15); Hes. Op. 521 (quoted in 1
n.). Cf. Porter (1949) 252–4; Podbielski (1971) 18–20; Pellizer (1978)
118–19.
ʌ઼ıȚ į੻ ਩ȡȖĮ: ʌ઼ıȚȞ (xAQP) is most likely a product of the—typically
scattered; cf. Introduction 6—acceptance in the Ȍ-family of a superlinear
nu designed to correct the meter after įૅ ਩ȡȖĮ had replaced (with neglect of
digamma; contrast 1) į੻ ਩ȡȖĮ (Hoffmann) in ȍ or its exemplar. Cf. 9 n.,
10–11 n., 21 n.
਩ȡȖĮ ȝȑȝȘȜİȞ is an epic phrase, but is elsewhere attested only at line-
end (e.g. Il. 5.876; 9.228 (digamma neglected); Od. 5.67).
ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ: For the combination of titles, cf. 1–2
ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ / ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ (but with the gloss supplied by the
goddess’ personal name there now omitted). The character Aphrodite who
plays a central part in the narratio that begins at 53 is never said to wear a
garland, headband, or the like (esp. 162–5; see West on Hes. Th. 578 for
the meaning of ıĲİĳȐȞȘ), and there may once again (cf. 1–2 n.) be a glanc-
ing reference to the goddess of cult, as also at 175 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ*
(a comparison drawn by the narrator between the ‘immortal beauty’ that
shines from the character Aphrodite’s cheeks at the moment she re-
assumes her proper appearance in Anchises’ hut, and the appearance typi-
cal of ‘violet-crowned Cytherea’), 287 ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȦȚ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȚ* (the char-
acter Aphrodite warns Anchises not to boast to the other Trojans of having
slept with her, using a title under which she is known to the world general-
ly). The adjective (also a v.l. at 175 ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ*, where see n.)
is applied routinely to goddesses, heroines, and the like (e.g. Od. 2.120 (the
heroine Mycene); Hes. Th. 255 (the Nereid Halimede), 1008 ਥȣıĲȑĳĮȞȠȢ
134 Commentary
ȀȣșȑȡİȚĮ*; hDem. 224 (Demeter); and cf. CEG 454.3 țĮȜȜȚıĲİҕ[ĳȐ]ȞȠ

ਝĳȡȠįȓĲİȢ / (the inscription on ‘Nestor’s cup’)), and normally serves as a
vague indication of beauty or majesty. Hes. Th. 198 explains the name
Cytherea by reference to the fact that Aphrodite approached Cythera—an
island off Cape Malea in the Peloponnese, where she was worshipped in
the historical period as Aphrodite Ourania (Hdt. i.105.3 with Asheri ad
loc.; Paus. iii.23.1; the archaeological evidence for the cult is minimal at
best)—as she was borne about in the sea after her birth from the foam pro-
duced by Sky’s testicles (cf. Th. 192–3; h. 6 introductory n.). As West
observes ad loc., ‘It is very doubtful whether the name is in fact connected
with ȀȪșİȡĮ, the difference in the quantity of the second syllable not hav-
ing been convincingly explained,’ and Morgan (1978) 115–20 suggests
that ȀȣșİȡİȓȘ originally had nothing to do with the place-name Cythera
and instead meant ‘the goddess of Desire.’ For the author of the Hymn, the
connection is in any case purely cultic (rather than ‘mythical’); cf. 2 n.
7–33 After the emphatic declaration of Aphrodite’s universal power in 2–6,
esp. 6, this unexpected catalogue of three exceptions—which could easily
have been omitted, with 36 following directly after 6 (34–5 being transi-
tional summary verses; cf. 33–5 n.)— might almost be understood as a
variation on a ‘hesitatory priamel’ (see Race (1982) 6–8). The contrasting
visions serve in any case as an initial indication that the Hymn as a whole
will be concerned not just with Aphrodite’s power but with its limitations,
in particular through the agency of Zeus (cf. 8 n., 23 n., 27–9, 45–52, 81–3
n.), and as a reminder that many fundamental human activities remain
outside her sphere (esp. 10–15, 18–21). For the three other goddesses
themselves, meanwhile, a willingness and ability to resist Aphrodite’s
power brings substantial, tangible rewards in the form of honor and influ-
ence among human beings (12–15, 19–20, 31–2). See in general Podbielski
(1971) 21–7; Lenz (1975) 134–6 (comparing Od. 20.68–72); Pellizer
(1978) 119–20, 137; Smith (1981a) 34–8; Parry (1986) 255–6; Clay (1989)
158–62; Rudhardt (1991) 16–18; Turkeltaub (2003) 101–16 (citing a series
of tenuous connections between the interests assigned the goddesses in
these embedded hymns and the action elsewhere in the poem).
The descriptions of Athena (8–15), Artemis (16–20), and Hestia (21–
32) are in essence miniature hymns embedded within the larger one in
honor of Aphrodite; cf. 37 with n., 41–4 (an embedded Hera-hymn) with n.
The structure of the first and second of these hymns is very similar: each
begins with a grand announcement of the god’s identity in the accusative
(8, 16), followed in the next verse by the assertion that she is not subject to
Aphrodite’s authority (9, 17), and then by a catalogue of activities in which
she is interested (10–11 (expanded in 12–15), 18–20). Contrast 21–31 (the
Hestia-hymn) with nn.
7 Resumed in 33 (identical except for the relative pronoun ĲȐȦȞ, which

replaces the anticipatory ĲȡȚııȐȢ here).
ĲȡȚııȐȢ: sc. șİȐȢ (not to be taken with ĳȡȑȞĮȢ); cf. Bossi (1978) 23–4.
The adjective is first attested here and at Hes. fr. 233.2.
ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌĮĲોıĮȚ clarifies what was said in 2–3 (where
see n.) about how Aphrodite gets her way, and the second and more point-
ed infinitive serves to bring out the latent sense of the first, which thus
means ‘to persuade to act (as good sense/one’s inclinations would normally
forbid)’. Cf. 17, 36, 38–9. As also in 2–5 (where what is nominally an
account of the extent of the goddess’ influence in fact consists of a cata-
logue of the creatures she controls), however, the emphasis is only momen-
tarily on Aphrodite herself, and what follows concentrates on those she
influences—or in this case fails to influence—hence the emphatic position
of ĲȡȚııȐȢ (cf. / ʌ઼ıȚ in 6). ʌİȓșȦ is nowhere else attested with separate
accusatives of the part and the whole of the individual persuaded (contrast
33 with n.), but the construction is unremarkable; cf. Il. 4.104 ĳȡȑȞĮȢ …
ʌİ૙șİȞ; 6.360 Ƞ੝įȑ ȝİ ʌİȓıİȚȢ; Hes. Op. 373 ȝȘį੻ ȖȣȞȒ ıİ ȞȩȠȞ
ʌȣȖȠıĲȩȜȠȢ ਥȟĮʌĮĲȐĲȦ (all cited by Bossi (1978)). For ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ,
cf. Il. 9.184 ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ȝİȖȐȜĮȢ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ.
8–15 Essentially a brief ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn to Athena,
describing her interests and attributes, but with no resort to narratio to
justify or explain the situation; cf. 16–20 (a similar but even shorter em-
bedded hymn to Artemis); Janko (1981) 11–12, 19; and contrast the narra-
tivized Hestia-hymn at 21–32. Hymns 11 and 28 (printed and discussed
elsewhere in this volume) are also dedicated to Athena.
8 A suitably grand announcement of the identity of the first divine excep-
tion to Aphrodite’s power (7). The line is formular (= Hes. Th. 13; in the
nominative at Il. 10.553) and emphasizes Athena’s close connection to her
father Zeus, whose turning of the tables on Aphrodite eventually emerges
as the real subject of the Hymn (45–52), and who is thus proleptically in-
troduced as a character. Zeus’ fearful majesty is brought out by mention of
his aegis (ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ ǻȚȩȢ; cf. 23 with n.), as is Athena’s own awful power
via reference to her as ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȢ (cf. h. 28.2, 10; Jessen, RE VII (1910)
1404–7; LfgrE s.v. ‘prob. having bright or gleaming eyes (perh. with con-
notation dreadful)’). The language with which the goddess is introduced
thus chiastically sets up the description of her keen interest in military
affairs in 10–13 and (through the description of her as the daughter of a
powerful father) in the occupations of unmarried young women in their
paternal houses in 14–15.
țȠȪȡȘȞ Ĳૅ: ‘(first,) the daughter …’; in apposition to ĲȡȚııȐȢ in 7.
136 Commentary
The accusative form ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįĮ is used metri gratia at Il. 8.373

ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįĮ İ੅ʌȘȚ / and is offered by the MSS at hAp. 323 ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįૅ
ਝșȒȞȘȞ / (ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ Abel, followed by West (2003)). But Homer and
Hesiod regularly use accusative ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ (M) wherever possible, and as
there is no positive reason to accept the later and less well-attested form,
Ȍ’s ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįૅ (printed by Càssola (1975)) should be rejected.
9 A brief explanatory (ȖȐȡ) remark, resuming the general negative asser-
tion in 7, but applying it to the specific case of Athena introduced in 8,
before the more significant and extended positive description of the god-
dess’ interests in 10–15. Cf. 16–17 (Artemis; introducing 18–20), 21–2
(Hestia) with nn.
ਚįİ: a ‘timeless’ descriptive hymnic aorist (cf. Pelliccia (1985) 48–9;
Faulkner (2006) 68, 70), although the use of ਖȞįȐȞȦ to refer to a god’s
adoption of a particular domain (LfgrE s.v. B 3; cf. 10, 18, 21; Hes. Th.
917, 926; hDem. 205) is non-Homeric. The MSS offer İ੡ĮįİȞ, but the
compound is not used elsewhere in early epic in this sense, and Pelliccia
(1985) 130 suggests that the verse ‘looks like a product of modernization:
the augment is given to İ੡ĮįİȞ only at the cost of Ƞੂ’s digamma; the line
was no doubt originally composed to read Ƞ੝ ȖȐȡ ࢭȠȚ ࢭȐįİȞ—i.e. to scan
precisely as does line 18, which was itself protected from augment imposi-
tion by the tau of ĲોȚ.’ But the nu-moveable is dispensable—and thus to be
disposed of—as well, assuming that the digamma at the beginning of ਩ȡȖĮ
is respected, as again in 10 and 11 (and cf. 1, 6 with n.). For the digamma
at the beginning of Ƞੂ, cf. 10.
਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ: cf. 1* with nn. But here the phrase is
unmistakeably a periphrasis for ‘love-affairs, sex’; see 6 n.
10–11 Cf. Hes. Th. 926 (of Athena) ਸȚ țȑȜĮįȠȓ Ĳİ ਚįȠȞ ʌȩȜİȝȠȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ
(‘to whom clamor, wars, and fights are pleasing’); h. 11.2–3 (of Athena)
‘who together with Ares is concerned with deeds of war, sacking cities, the
battle-cry, and wars’ with n.; and contrast Il. 5.428–30, where Zeus tells
Aphrodite (who has just been wounded in battle with the mortal Diomedes)
that ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ਩ȡȖĮ belong not to her but tȠ Ares and Athena.
‘Lively’ ਙȡĮ marks the transition to the more interesting question of
the various matters in which Athena does take an interest (contrast 9); cf.
30 n.
ʌȩȜİȝȠȚ (‘wars’) are in one sense precisely ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਡȡȘȠȢ (‘Ares’ do-
ings, Ares’ sphere of interest’). But the latter is a broader and thus poten-
tially richer term, allowing it to be unpacked further in the first half of 11
(where see n.), and produces a pointed, specific verbal contrast with ਩ȡȖĮ
ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ in 9.
ਚįȠȞ: For the ‘timeless’ use of the verb to refer to an individual god’s
sphere of interest, see 9 n., and note the respect of the initial digamma.
The punctuation, which puts ਫ਼ıȝ૙ȞĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ in apposition to ਩ȡȖȠȞ
ઓȡȘȠȢ at the end of 10, is that of West (2003). ‘Combats and fights’ are
engaged in by individual men (or armies made up of individual men),
whereas ‘wars’ (10) are the concern of cities or states. The words thus lend
immediate, practical content to the phrase they gloss, as the attention of the
narrative gradually shifts from the divine sphere (what Athena herself cares
about and does) in 9–10 to the human sphere (what she encourages human
beings to do) in 12–15 (where see n.); cf. 18–20 n.
After the repeated, emphatic reference to military affairs in 10 and the
first half of 11, țĮ੿ ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖૅ ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚȞ comes as a surprise that reveals
a second side of Athena and a second contrast with Aphrodite (cf. 9). In
Homer, ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ are not ‘brilliant deeds’, i.e. actions (for example in
war) that win the individual responsible for them honor in the eyes of oth-
ers. Instead, the phrase is consistently used for the ‘fine crafts’ produced by
women or goddesses, and in particular their weaving (Od. 10.223; 13.289;
15.418; 16.158; cf. Od. 22.421–3; Hes. Op. 63–4; fr. 43a.70–3); cf. 15. The
sheen attached to such objects thus belongs to the objects alone, and the
adjective represents the focalization of those who desire or consume them
(cf. 12–15 n.); the renown is not transferred via a sort of social hypallage to
the individuals who create the goods. The idea is expanded in 12–13 to
include items produced by human craftsmen, as also at h. 20.2–3 (He-
phaestus and Athena taught human beings ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ, in particular how to
construct homes for themselves); note the appreciative ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ ȤĮȜț૵Ț at
the end of 13 with n. The change in the thought is accompanied (or
marked) by a shift in construction: ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖ(Į) is not yet another subject
for ਚįȠȞ, as it initially appears to be, but the object of ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚȞ. (Cf. 18,
where ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ, however, contributes to the sense, as ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚȞ here does
not; perhaps emend to ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚ, with Athena as subject?) The digamma at
the beginning of ਩ȡȖĮ is respected, as also in 9 and 10.
12–15 In 10–11, ‘wars and Ares’ doings’ are tacitly taken to be of interest
not just to Athena but to the implied audience of the poem as well, and to
fall within their assumed area of cultural competence. Cart- and chariot-
making (12–13), on the other hand, like the production of textiles (14–15),
are represented as skills practiced by specific, implicitly subordinate
groups, and have value not in and of themselves but as a result of what
they yield.
12 ʌȡȫĲȘ does not identify Athena as the first in a series of similar figures
(‘she was the first to teach’), as if human beings had learned this lesson
repeatedly. Instead, the word reinforces the idea of priority already inher-
138 Commentary
ent in ਥįȓįĮȟİ (‘she first taught’, i.e. ‘it was she who in the beginning
taught’, a historical aorist; contrast 15 with n.). Cf. Pelliccia (1985) 51;
Faulkner (2006) 69; and note the similar use of the adjective with forms of
İਫ਼ȡȓıțȦ (‘be the first to discover’, which means nothing more than ‘dis-
cover’) at e.g. Phoron. fr. 2.5–6, p. 119 Bernabé. For Athena teaching
craftsmen their skills, e.g. Il. 5.60–2; 15.410–12; Od. 6.232–4 = 23.159–
61; h. 20.2–3; D.S. v.73.8; cf. Od. 8.493–4; Hes. Op. 430–1. For the asyn-
deton, cf. Il. 17.597; 24.710; Od. 3.36.
Forms of ਕȞȒȡ (‘man’) are generally pleonastic in expressions such as
ĲȑțĲȠȞĮȢ ਙȞįȡĮȢ (e.g. Il. 4.187 ȤĮȜțોİȢ … ਙȞįȡİȢ; 16.633 įȡȣĲȩȝȦȞ
ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ; 23.845 ȕȠȣțȩȜȠȢ ਕȞȒȡ; [Hes.] Sc. 214 ਕȞ੽ȡ ਖȜȚİȪȢ; cf. LfgrE s.v.
B III 4 a Į); for ĲȑțĲȠȞİȢ ਙȞįȡİȢ in particular, Il. 6.315; 13.390; 16.483;
Od. 9.126. But here the word serves to mark the contrast with Athena’s
status as a divinity—a point underlined by ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȠȣȢ, which might oth-
erwise also be regarded as pleonastic—on the one hand (cf. h. 20.2–3
ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ / ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ ਥįȓįĮȟİȞ ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞȩȢ, of Hephaestus together with
Athena), and the girls described in 14–15, on the other. A ĲȑțĲȦȞ (etymol-
ogy uncertain) is a ‘builder’ or ‘craftsman’ who works with wood and
similar hard materials, sometimes attaching metal parts (e.g. Il. 4.110–11 (a
bow made of horn with a gold string-notch); Od. 19.55–7 (a couch with
ivory and silver insets); cf. Il. 5.59–62 (a ship-builder named Tekton);
hHerm. 25 (construction of a lyre described with the cognate verb
ĲİțĲĮȓȞȦ)), as here; treated as a basic occupational category and distin-
guished from a potter at Hes. Op. 25.
13 Because carts and chariots are large, complicated objects that require
horses or mules to be of use, they are among the most luxurious of luxury
goods.
ıĮĲȓȞĮȚ (attested only in the plural) are fancy carts of some sort, and
are elsewhere used exclusively by women (Sapph. fr. 44.13 ıĮĲȓȞĮȚ[Ȣ] ੝ʌૅ
ਥȣĲȡȩȤȠȚȢ (pulled by mules and ridden by Troy’s women and girls as part
of a marriage celebration; contrasted with the horse-drawn ਚȡȝĮĲĮ used by
the city’s men); E. Hel. 1311 (used by Demeter/the Mountain Mother;
lyric) and effeminates (Anacr. PMG 388. 12 (among the affectations of the
disgusting nouveau riche Artemon)). Probably a loan-word from a lan-
guage such as Lydian or Phrygian; attested nowhere after Euripides, except
in Herodian (who repeatedly defines it as İੇįȠȢ ਚȡȝĮĲȠȢ, ‘a type of cart’)
and at Hsch. ı 247 (glossed Įੂ ਚȝĮȟĮȚ; most likely from a note on Helen).
The obscurity of the term must be at least in part responsible for the cor-
ruption of ıĮĲȓȞĮȢ to ıȐĲȚȞĮ in ȍ (as if this were a neuter plural; further
corrupted or ‘corrected’ to ıțȪĲȚȞĮ in f); Barnes’ addition of Ĳİ serves to
eliminate both masculine caesura and hiatus between țĮ੿ and ਚȡȝĮĲĮ.
ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ ȤĮȜț૵Ț: Although the adjective agrees grammatically with

ਚȡȝĮĲĮ, it is easily understood as describing the ıĮĲ૙ȞĮȚ as well. The vehi-
cles themselves are made primarily of wood, to which decorative bronze
strips or bosses are attached; in addition to the passages cited in the second
apparatus, cf. Il. 10.438 (Rhesus’ chariot decorated with gold and silver);
23.503 (Diomedes’ chariot decorated with gold and tin) with Richardson
ad loc.; Od. 3.492 = 15.145 = 15.190; Daremberg–Saglio (1828–1911)
i.1636–7; Lorimer (1950) 326–7.
14–15 rework and respond to Hesiod’s description at Op. 519–23 of the
‘soft-skinned young girl’ (ʌĮȡșİȞȚțોȢ ਖʌĮȜȩȤȡȠȠȢ*; the phrase is not at-
tested elsewhere) who sits inside with her mother, ‘utterly unacquainted
with the deeds of Aphrodite rich in gold’ (Ƞ੡ ʌȦ ਩ȡȖૅ İੁįȣ૙Į ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ; cf. 1 with n.). There is no suggestion in Hesiod that the girl
does any work, and her ability to remain physically attractive depends in
part on that (cf. West on Op. 522; Th. 594–602 (on women doing nothing
but eating up a man’s substance)). The young women described here, on
the other hand, are not just tantalizingly sexual (see below on ਖʌĮȜȩȤȡȠĮȢ)
but industrious as well.
Despite superficial similarities, the discussion of cart- and chariot-
making in 12–13 is strikingly different from the treatment of women’s
work in 14–15. There Athena is said to have originated the craft (ʌȡȫĲȘ …
ਥįȓįĮȟİ), which has been passed on from one human being to the next ever
since. Here, by contrast, she works via a constant process of individual
inspiration, ‘by putting [such enterprises] in each girl’s mind’. ਥįȓįĮȟİ is
thus a ‘timeless’ hymnic narrative, and one might just as easily print ਩ȡȖĮ
įȓįĮȟİ, treating the augment as an intrusive attempt to correct the text; cf.
2–3 n.; Pelliccia (1985) 51. For Athena teaching women crafts, e.g. Od.
20.72; Hes. Op. 63–4 ਩ȡȖĮ įȚįĮıțોıĮȚ, ʌȠȜȣįĮȓįĮȜȠȞ ੂıĲઁȞ ਫ਼ĳĮȓȞİȚȞ (‘to
teach her tasks, that is, to weave elaborate fabric’); cf. Il. 5.733–5 (Athena
weaves her own clothing); 9.390 (Agamemnon’s daughter imagined, in
commendation, as Athena’s equal in ਩ȡȖĮ); 14.178–9 (Athena weaves
clothing for Hera); Leonid. HE 2213–30 = AP vi.288–9; Phil. GPh 2781–8
= AP vi.247 (all women’s dedications of wool-working tools to Athena).
ʌĮȡșİȞȚțȐȢ functions as a substantive, as at e.g. Il. 18.567; Hes. Op.
63.
ਖʌĮȜȩȤȡȠĮȢ is erotic (cf. 88 ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜોȚ įİȚȡોȚ with n., 90 ıĲȒșİıȚȞ
ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜȠ૙ıȚȞ with n.; Il. 19.285; h. 6.10; Hes. fr. 75.10; Cratin. fr. 195.3
with Olson (2007) B3.3 n.) and is focalized by someone who touches—or
would like to touch—such girls; cf. 12–15 n. (on the implied adult male
primary audience of the poem). Hes. Op. 522–3 (quoted above) offers what
amounts to a gloss on the adjective (Op. 519): ‘carefully washing her ten-
der skin and anointing it richly with olive oil’. The word is attested else-
140 Commentary
where in early epic only there; subsequently at Thgn. 1341 (of a boy with
whom the speaker is in love).
The point of ਥȞ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ is not just—perhaps not even primarily—
that the girls are taught to weave ‘within (their father’s) house’. Instead,
the house is where they are properly found almost all the time (cf. 114
ȝİȖȐȡȦȚ) and especially when they do their weaving.
ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖ(Į): see 11 n.
ਥʌ੿ ĳȡİı੿ șİ૙ıĮ ਦțȐıĲȘȚ: Craftsmen produce goods of all kinds, and
relatively few of them occupy themselves with carts and wagons (12–13
with 13 n.). But every household needs cloth, and every woman, young or
old, must devote time to producing it, like it or not; cf. 139–40 n. For the
language, cf. Il. 13.121 ਥȞ ĳȡİı੿ șȑıșİ ਪțĮıĲȠȢ; Od. 4.729 ਥȞ੿ ĳȡİı੿ șȑıșİ
ਦțȐıĲȘ; ਥʌ੿ ĳȡİı੿ șોț(İ) at e.g. Il. 1.55; 8.218; Od. 5.427; 18.158; 21.1.
16–20 can be understood as a second short embedded ‘descriptive’ or ‘at-
tributive’ hymn (cf. 8–15 n.), in honor of another virgin daughter of
Zeus—who himself, however, goes unmentioned here (contrast 8, 23, 27–
9). Hymns 9 and 27 (printed and discussed elsewhere in this volume) are
also dedicated to Artemis.
16–17 A priamel, once again resuming the general negative assertion in 7
(cf. 9 n., and see below), but applying it in this case to Artemis before the
positive description of her interests in 18–20.
Ƞ੝į੻ … / įȐȝȞĮĲĮȚ ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ: Unlike in 7 (where see n.), the em-
phasis is on Aphrodite’s failure to achieve the results she desires, rather
than on the methods she employs to pursue them, which are irrelevant to
the specific point at issue. ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ in the sense ‘in lovemaking, in bed’
is Homeric (e.g. 150 with n.; Il. 2.232; 24.130 (both with forms of ȝȓıȖȦ,
literally ‘mix’)). But the use of the phrase as something approaching a bare
instrumental dative with įȐȝȞȘȝȚ (cf. 3 ਥįĮȝȐııĮĲȠ with n., 82 n.; Od.
9.516; Hes. fr. 141.2 ǻȚઁȢ įȝȘșİ૙ıĮ įȩȜȠȚıȚ (of Europa)) to say that Aph-
rodite is eager to convince Artemis to go to bed with someone else, as a
means of subduing her, is unexpected. For the verb, cf. also Hes. Th. 121–2
(of Eros) ʌȐȞĲȦȞ Ĳİ șİ૵Ȟ ʌȐȞĲȦȞ Ĳૅ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ / įȐȝȞĮĲĮȚ ਥȞ ıĲȒșİııȚ
ȞȩȠȞ țĮ੿ ਥʌȓĳȡȠȞĮ ȕȠȣȜȒȞ.
ਝȡĲȑȝȚįĮ ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ: modeled on Il. 20.70–1 (quot-
ed in the first apparatus), which also supplied the template for h. 9.1–2;
27.1–2; cf. 118 (where most of the Ȍ-family MSS again carelessly drop a
syllable from ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȢ); Bacch. 10.37–9 ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ ਕȖȡȠĲȑȡĮ /
ȤȡȣıĮȜȐțĮĲȠȢ … / … ĲȠȟȩțȜȣĲȠȢ. The accusative form ਝȡĲȑȝȚįĮ is inno-
vative, ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ being standard elsewhere (e.g. h. 27.1). Artemis, like
Athena (8 with n.), is introduced with a grand epic formula that implicitly
stresses her majesty and thus—despite the universal claim in 2—the intrin-
sic improbability of her automatic subjection to Aphrodite’s power. This is

even more the case, given the vigorous nature of the epithets the goddess is
assigned. țİȜĮįİȚȞȒ (of the West Wind at Il. 23.208) is perhaps cognate
with țĮȜȑȦ (‘to call’) and țȑȜĮįȠȢ (‘clamor’), and is taken by ȈD Il. 16.83
and 20.70 to refer to the noise of the hunt, Artemis’ interest in which is
treated in 18 (but see also 19 with n.) and at h. 27.2, 4–10 (esp. 7–8 ‘and
the shady woods resound loudly with the howling of the animals’).
ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȢ, meanwhile, might mean ‘of the gold distaff’ (sc. for hold-
ing washed and carded wool, before it is spun on a spindle; cf. Blümner
(1879) i2.122–31), and seems to be understood that way by the Odyssey-
poet at 4.122–35 (Helen compared to ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȚ ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȦȚ* at 4.122,
and then said at 4.131 to have a ȤȡȣıȑȘȞ … ਱ȜĮțȐĲȘȞ (‘gold distaff’),
given to her by the queen of Egypt, with which she spins), as later by Pin-
dar (e.g. O. 6.104; N. 5.35) and Bacchylides (11.38 with Maehler ad loc.).
But Artemis is not presented here or elsewhere as taking an interest in
domestic matters, which are instead the province of Athena (14–15) and
Hestia (30), and the adjective is perhaps better understood ‘of the gold
arrows’ (cf. the reference to her bow in 18), as also at Il. 16.183 (where see
Janko’s n.); 20.70. ਱ȜĮțȐĲȘ seems originally to have meant ‘reed’ (A. fr. 8
ʌȠȜȣȘȜȐțĮĲȠȚ ‘full of reeds’, of rivers; Hsch. Ș 307) or ‘reed-section’
(Thphr. HP iv.11.11), and the fact that reed-sections were used to produce
both arrows and distaffs made the extended sense of the word ambiguous;
cf. Due (1965) 1–9. The gods’ property and attributes are conventionally
imagined as made of gold, no matter how impractical that might be in real
life (e.g. 117 (Hermes’ staff); Hes. Th. 12 (Hera’s sandals); h. 9.4 (Arte-
mis’ chariot); 27.3 (Apollo’s sword), 5 (Artemis’ bow); 28.5–6 (Athena’s
arms and armor)); cf. 64–5 (Aphrodite’s gold jewelry) with n., 152 (Apol-
lo’s silver bow), 206 (the gold mixing-bowl in Zeus’ house), 218 (Dawn’s
throne).
ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: The smiles of which Aphrodite is fond pre-
sumably include not just her own (cf. h. 10.2–3) but those of her victims as
well; cf. 49 with n., and contrast 56 with n. Although the epithet—
explained at Hes. Th. 200 as a reference to Aphrodite’s birth from (the
foam produced by) Sky’s genitals (ȝȒįİĮ)—is traditional (cf. the second
apparatus), therefore, it is appropriate in the context of her attempts to
make Artemis fall in love. ȍ appears to have read ĳȚȜȠȝİȚįȒȢ (MĬ), per-
haps with the second ȝ added above the line and taken into the text by p;
cf. Introduction 6. For the error, cf. 49, 56, 65, 155.
18–20 Artemis is assigned three positive interests, each allotted a single
verse containing two or more complementary terms: hunting (18), festivals
(19), and the places where those festivals are celebrated and the individuals
who participate in them (20). Cf. Call. h. 3.1–3 ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ … / … ĲોȚ ĲȩȟĮ
142 Commentary
ȜĮȖȦȕȠȜȓĮȚ Ĳİ ȝȑȜȠȞĲĮȚ / țĮ੿ ȤȠȡઁȢ ਕȝĳȚȜĮĳ੽Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਦȥȚȐĮıșĮȚ.

19–20 describe the physical and social setting for what 18 allows to be
imagined as a cult of Artemis the Huntress (cf. 16 with nn.), many of
whose particulars are reminiscent of the celebration that provides the set-
ting for the tale of the abduction of the daughter of King Otreus of Phrygia
in 118–20. But here the individual worshippers are invisible, except in the
general reference to ‘just men’ in the second half of 20, and the emphasis is
on the sights and especially the sounds of the celebrations (19) and the
spots where they occur (20), as if the action was being described, at least
initially, from a great distance or an ‘Olympian’ perspective, e.g. by the
goddess herself, who is high in the mountains outside of town (18) when
the celebration in the settled area down below begins (cf. 20 n. on ਙȜıİȐ Ĳİ
ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ). For the gradual movement from a description of the goddess’
own activities to those of human beings associated with her, cf. 10–11 n.
18 țĮ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ ĲોȚ ਚįİ: For the verb, see 9 n., 19 n.; the initial digamma is
respected. M has ʌȠȣȜȪȤȡȣıĮ įȑ, which scans but is impossible, since a
verb is needed. Most likely a form of the adjective (but with a short initial
syllable) originally stood in the margin in ȍ at 17, as a variant for
ĳȚȜȠ(ȝ)ȝİȚįȒȢ (cf. 1, 9), and was mistakenly inserted at the beginning of 18
by the M-scribe, who altered it slightly to fit the meter and to match the
case and number of ĲȩȟĮ.
The bow is a fundamental part of Artemis’ iconography (e.g. Il.
21.483, 490; h. 27.5, 12, 16; cf. Il. 5.53; Hes. Th. 14 ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ (‘shedder of
arrows’); Call. h. 3.8–10); she uses it to kill not just wild animals, but
women as well (e.g. Il. 6.428; 21.483–4; 24.606; Od. 11.324–5; 15.478;
20.60–3; cf. 151–4 n.). țĮ੿ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ (modeled on Il. 21.485–
6 țĮĲૅ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚ șોȡĮȢ ਥȞĮȓȡİȚȞ / ਕȖȡȠĲȑȡĮȢ Ĳૅ ਥȜȐĳȠȣȢ (Hera’s description
of Artemis’ proper sphere of interest)) in the second half of the verse thus
amounts to a clarification of the point of ĲȩȟĮ in the first. For Artemis’
interest in hunting, Il. 5.51–2; 21.485–6 (quoted above); h. 27.4–10; cf.
Od. 6.102–4 Ƞ੆Ș įૅ ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ İੇıȚ țĮĲૅ Ƞ੡ȡİĮ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ (but with no spe-
cific mention of killing the boars and deer in which the goddess is said
(104) to take delight); Thgn. 11 ਡȡĲİȝȚ șȘȡȠĳȩȞȘ; LIMC II.2 p. 619 (with
references to later literary and visual material); Pearson on S. fr. 309 (on
Artemis as a mountain goddess); Call. h. 2.20 (Artemis is speaking)
Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ȠੁțȒıȦ (‘I will inhabit the mountains’). Hunting conventionally
takes place in ‘the mountains’ (e.g. Il. 11.474–6; Od. 11.572–4; 19.429–
32), i.e. in uncultivated areas outside the city (contrast 20 with n.), where
wild animals of all sorts can be found (cf. 68–74; Il. 5.52; 15.271–6; h.
20.4 ਙȞĲȡȠȚȢ ȞĮȚİĲȐĮıțȠȞ ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਱ȪĲİ șોȡİȢ (‘they used to dwell in
caves in the mountains, like wild beasts’); LfgrE s. ੕ȡȠȢ B 2e). The plains,
by contrast, belong to men. Cf. 54–5 n., 68–72, 122–4 with nn., 159–60;
Buxton (1992) 2: ‘An oros is not, then, to be defined simply in terms of

physical height. An oros is not the plain (where you grow corn and fight in
phalanx), nor is it the city or the village (where you live). … An oros is a
height outside inhabited and cultivated space—outside the polis, the astu,
and the komai’ (pp. 3–4; see also p. 6 on hunting). Boars are extremely
dangerous and must accordingly be hunted with javelins and spears, and
always by a group of men and dogs (Il. 5.543–5; Od. 19.438, 447–53; cf.
Hdt. i.36). Goats, deer, and the like, on the other hand, can be taken simply
with bows (e.g. Il. 11.475–6; Od. 9.154–8), and would seem to be the type
of game most obviously referred to here; cf. 70–1 n.; Il. 21.485–6 (above);
and the reference to Artemis as ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ (‘deer-shooting
shedder of arrows’) at Hes. fr. 23a.21; h. 27.2. For hunting generally, see
Buchholz, Jöhrens, and Maull (1973) 3–130 (44–62 on goats and deer);
Anderson (1985) 17–56 (focussing on the classical period).
For șોȡĮȢ, cf. 4–5 with n., 68–72.
19 ĳȩȡȝȚȖȖȑȢ Ĳİ ȤȠȡȠȓ Ĳİ: cf. Od. 8.248 țȓșĮȡȓȢ Ĳİ ȤȠȡȠȓ Ĳİ /. ‘Lyres’ and
‘dances’ go naturally together, since the latter are executed to music pro-
duced by the former (e.g. Il. 18.494–5, 569–72; Od. 8.256–65; 23.133–4;
[Hes.] Asp. 280). Apollo is the divine lyre-player (e.g. Il. 1.603; hAp. 201–
2; hHerm. 475–9; Pi. N. 5.23–5), and Artemis herself often dances to the
music her brother plays in Zeus’ halls on Olympus or somewhere similar;
see h. 27.13–20 n. But here (contrast 18) the goddess’ own interests and
behavior are less at issue than those of the human beings who engage in
such activities in order to honor her, as the second half of the verse (see
below) makes clear. The lyre in question (also called a țȓșĮȡȚȢ, for which
see 80 with n.; the etymology of both words is uncertain) is a round-based
box lyre, perhaps with only three or four strings (as opposed to the seven
that became standard later on, the increase in number being regularly at-
tributed to the semi-mythical Terpander); see Wegner (1968) 2–18, 40–69;
West (1992) 49–56; Maas and Snyder (1989) 4–14, 26–30.
įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȓ Ĳૅ ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ appears to be echoed at Call. h. 4.258
įȚĮʌȡȣıȓȘȞ ੑȜȠȜȣȖȒȞ / (of the cries of the nymphs on Delos at Apollo’s
birth); cf. Introduction 3.
įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȚ: ‘penetrating, piercing’, and thus here ‘loud and shrill’; the
etymology is uncertain, although the first element is obviously įȚĮ-
(‘through’). The word appears in Homer only in the neuter accusative in
the Iliad, where it functions as an adverb (e.g. 8.227 = 11.275 ਵȣıİȞ į੻
įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȞ ǻĮȞĮȠ૙ıȚ ȖİȖȦȞȫȢ (‘he called out loudly to the Danaans, shout-
ing to make himself heard’); 17.748*), as in 80*. Subsequently attested at
hHerm. 336 (įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȞ* țİȡĮȚıĲȒȞ ‘a penetrating plunderer’, i.e. ‘a thief
who cannot be stopped’; an even more eccentric usage); in Pindar (N. 4.51,
144 Commentary
in the sense ‘far-stretching’) and tragic lyric (S. OC 1479; E. Hel. 1308
(both of sounds)); and occasionally in late prose.
ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ are emotionally charged, inarticulate cries that follow or ac-
company prayer and/or sacrifice (Il. 6.301; Od. 3.450; 4.767) or another
manifestation of divine power (Od. 22.408, 411; hAp. 119, 445). Here the
word refers via synecdoche to the slaughter of a victim that marks the cli-
max of what must now be understood as public festivities that are part of
the human world and include, as preliminary matters, the music and danc-
ing mentioned in the first half of the verse. Elsewhere in early epic,
ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ are produced only by women, who do not play the lyre or make
sacrifice, but who are described as participating in a chorus at a festival of
Artemis at 118–20 and must here be imagined as part of the crowd of wor-
shippers.
20 ਙȜıİȐ Ĳİ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ: An ਙȜıȠȢ (‘sacred grove’) is a special precinct set
aside for a god outside a city (e.g. Od. 6.291–4; 17.204–8), and routinely
contains an altar (Od. 17.208–11; hAp. 384; [Hes.] Sc. 70), on the one
hand—making this an appropriate setting for the sacrifices referred to
obliquely in 19 (where see n.)—and an abundant source of water (e.g. Od.
6.292; 17.205–6, 208–10; hAp. 384–5), and therefore trees (e.g. Od. 6.291–
2 ਙȜıȠȢ … / ĮੁȖİȓȡȦȞ (‘a sacred grove of poplars’); hAp. 76 ਙȜıİĮ
įİȞįȡȘȑȞĲĮ (‘sacred groves full of trees’), 143, 235), on the other; cf. 97
with n., 264–8 with nn. The trees within the grove produce the shade to
which the adjective (never of ਙȜıİĮ elsewhere in early epic, but commonly
applied to mountains, clouds, and halls) refers; the focalization is either
that of celebrants (like those whose actions are obliquely described in 19,
as more explicitly at Od. 20.277–8 ĲȠ੿ įૅ ਕȖȑȡȠȞĲȠ țȐȡȘ țȠȝȩȦȞĲİȢ ਝȤĮȚȠȓ
/ ਙȜıȠȢ ੢ʌȠ ıțȚİȡઁȞ ਦțĮĲȘȕȩȜȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ (‘and the long-haired Achae-
ans gathered beneath the shady sacred grove of Apollo who shoots from
afar’)) or—more in keeping with the general structure of the passage (see
18–20 n.)—of Artemis herself, as she visits the spot, drawn from the
mountain and her hunting by the sound of the celebration in her honor. Cf.
below on the singular ʌĲȩȜȚȢ and įȚțĮȓȦȞ; 72–4 n. on ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ.
įȚțĮȓȦȞ: i.e. in context ‘who show the gods due respect’ (e.g. Od.
3.133; 6.120 = 9.175), by collectively sponsoring (hence the reference to
the city) and individually participating in the local rites celebrated in the
sacred precincts referred to in the first half of the verse, and thus by exten-
sion in the specific activities described in 19 (and see below on ʌĲȩȜȚȢ).
The assessment is thus again easily understood as that of Artemis (cf.
above on ਙȜıİȐ Ĳİ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ), who is pleased by the dances and sacrifices
carried out in her honor. For Artemis’ concern for justice and her readiness
to punish its opposite (not usually among her most prominent characteris-
tics), see also Call. h. 3.121–35; and cf. Anacr. PMG 348.5–8 (of Artemis)
șȡĮıȣțĮȡįȓȦȞ / ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ … ʌȩȜȚȞ / ȤĮȓȡȠȣıૅ, Ƞ੝ Ȗ੹ȡ ਕȞȘȝȑȡȠȣȢ /

ʌȠȚȝĮȓȞİȚȢ ʌȠȜȚȒĲĮȢ (‘taking pleasure in a city of bold-hearted men, for you
do not keep watch over untamed citizens’).
ʌĲȩȜȚȢ: Thus Chalcondyles for Ĭ’s unmetrical ʌȩȜȚȢ (p’s ʌȩȞȠȢ repre-
senting a further corruption or clumsy attempt at correction). M’s impossi-
ble ʌȩȜİȚȢ reflects ill-ease with the singular, which suggests a reference to
a specific city, and which seems guaranteed by the reworking of the verse
at 3.122 (cf. Introduction 3).
21–32 A brief ‘narrative’ or ‘mythic’ hymn in honor of Hestia—actually
only one verse shorter than the two ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymns to
Artemis and Athena that precede it combined—which includes accounts of
the goddess’ birth (22–3); of how she was courted but declined to marry
(24–8); and of the honors and privileges Zeus accorded her in compensa-
tion, and thus her contemporary position within the human world in partic-
ular (29–32). Although the nominal subject of the hymn is Hestia, it con-
sistently emphasizes the position of Zeus (cf. 8 with n.) and in particular
his authority over the sexuality of individual goddesses, underlining the
anomaly of Aphrodite’s occasional power over him (36–7) and preparing
for the larger story of her come-uppance at his hands. Hymns 24 and 29
(printed and discussed elsewhere in this volume) are also dedicated to
Hestia.
For the tale of Hestia’s refusal to marry, cf. ȈVī Ar. V. 846, citing Aris-
tonicus FGrH 493 F 5 (3rd c. BCE?): ȝİĲ੹ Ȗ੹ȡ Ĳઁ țĮĲĮȜȣșોȞĮȚ Ĳ੽Ȟ Ĳ૵Ȟ
ȉȚĲȐȞȦȞ ਕȡȤ੽Ȟ ĲઁȞ ǻȓĮ įİȟȐȝİȞȠȞ Ĳ੽Ȟ ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȞ ਥʌȚĲȡȑʌİȚȞ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȚ
ȜĮȕİ૙Ȟ, ੖ ĲȚ ȕȠȪȜȠȚĲȠā Ĳ੽Ȟ į੻ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ʌĮȡșİȞȓĮȞ ĮੁĲોıĮȚ, ȝİĲ੹ į੻ Ĳ੽Ȟ
ʌĮȡșİȞȓĮȞ ਕʌĮȡȤ੹Ȣ Ĳ૵Ȟ șȣȠȝȑȞȦȞ Į੝ĲોȚ ȞȑȝİıșĮȚ ʌȡȫĲȘȚ ʌĮȡ੹ Ĳ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (‘Because after the overthrow of the Titans’ regime, after Zeus
took control of the kingship, he allowed Hestia to pick anything she want-
ed. Her initial request was for virginity, and then after virginity that she be
the first to be awarded first-fruits of sacrificial victims from human be-
ings’). Aristonicus’ account of these events does not appear to be depend-
ent on the one preserved in the Hymn, and the two are better read as com-
plementary and mutually illuminating versions of an otherwise unknown
story. The account of Artemis’ request to remain a virgin at Sapph. fr.
44A.4–8 is similar: [ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ į੻ șȑȦȞ] ȝȑȖĮȞ ੕ȡțȠȞ ਕʌȫȝȠıİ / [ …
țİĳȐ]ȜĮȞā ਙȚ ʌȐȡșİȞȠȢ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ / [ … ] ȦȞ ੑȡȑȦȞ țȠȡȪĳĮȚıૅ ਩ʌȚ / [ … ]įİ
Ȟİ૨ıȠȞ ਩ȝĮȞ ȤȐȡȚȞā / [ … ȑȞİȣ]ıİ șȑȦȞ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ ʌȐĲȘȡ (‘Artemis swore
the great oath of the gods that she would not … head. “I will always be a
virgin … upon the mountain-tops … nod your consent to my request” …
The father of the blessed gods nodded in consent’); cf. 28–9 n. for other
parallels.
146 Commentary
21 Unlike Athena and Artemis—essentially public figures, introduced with

rich clusters of traditional epithets that define their positive interests, abili-
ties, and affiliations (8 with n., 16 with n.) and that are then unpacked in
various ways (9–15, 18–20)—Hestia (never mentioned as a goddess in
Homer) is initially described only as an ĮੁįȠȓȘ țȠȪȡȘ. But she is also
awarded almost as much space as the other two goddesses combined, and
the rest of the embedded hymn works aggressively to explain how it is that,
despite her seeming obscurity and lack of involvement in the larger world
of gods or men, she receives (and deserves) at least as much honor as any
other Olympian. The narrative that follows can accordingly be understood
as an attempt to historicize and so explain the terms in which Hestia is
described in this verse.
Ƞ੝į੻ ȝȑȞ merely ‘conveys an emphatic denial’ (Denniston (1954)
362); there is no balancing įȑ.
ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ țȠȪȡȘȚ: ĮੁįȫȢ is the essentially inhibitory sense of ‘shame’
that keeps an individual from violating perceived social norms; failure to
exhibit it produces ȞȑȝİıȚȢ (‘resentment, social hostility’) in others. Cf.
181–2 n.; Olson (1995) 17–22, with further bibliography. The cognate
adjective ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȢ can thus mean ‘displaying ĮੁįȫȢ’, and is commonly used
in this sense (LfgrE s.v. B 1) of women (specifically of a țȠȪȡȘ elsewhere
in early epic only at Hes. fr. 180.13 (conjectural)), with particular reference
to their sexuality; cf. 44 with n. (Hera in her role as Zeus’ bride as ĮੁįȠȓȘ),
156 with n.; h. 28.10–11 ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ … / ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ; of ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȚ (‘unmarried
girls’; see 28 with n.) at Il. 2.514; Hes. Th. 572 = Op. 71; h. 6.1 (of Aphro-
dite herself); 27.2 (of Artemis); 28.3 (of Athena). But ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȢ can also
mean ‘deserving of ĮੁįȫȢ from others’ (LfgrE s.v. B II; of gods at e.g. Hes.
Th. 44, 194 with West ad loc.; Op. 301; hDem. 374, 486; cf. h. 6.1 n.), and
the remainder of the Hestia-hymn develops this sense of the adjective
more aggressively than the first; cf. 24 n. The repeated mentions of the
moment of the goddess’ birth in 22–3, meanwhile, justify the reference to
her as a țȠȪȡȘ (normally ‘young woman’ when the relation to a parent is
not in question, as it is in 8, where the word means ‘daughter’) and prepare
for the tale of how Poseidon and Apollo courted her in vain, and of how
her decision to remain unmarried, once ratified by Zeus, fixed her in that
status forever.
ਚįİ: The digamma at the beginning of the verb (a ‘timeless’ aorist; see
9 n.) is respected, meaning that there is no hiatus after țȠȪȡȘȚ. The nu-
moveable at the end of the manuscripts’ ਚįİȞ can be removed as another
intrusive attempt to correct the text after the existence of digamma at the
beginning of ਩ȡȖ(Į) was forgotten; cf. 9 with n.
਩ȡȖ(Į) ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ: see 6 n.
22–23 According to Hesiod, Cronus swallowed his children to keep from

being overthrown by one of them (Th. 459–62). But Rhea rescued her
youngest child, Zeus, by offering Cronus a stone in his place (Th. 468–91),
and later Cronus, ‘taken in by Earth’s cunning suggestions’ (i.e. by the
advice she offered Zeus), was convinced to vomit up his other children,
‘overcome by the crafts and might of his son’ (Th. 494–6). Eventually,
after a long war between the generations, Zeus deposed his father and
seized dominion over the gods for himself (Th. 687–733). Because Hestia
appears first in Hesiod’s list of the children of Cronus and Rhea (Th. 454),
the implicit assumption here (as at 32) is that she was born and swallowed
first (ʌȡ૵ĲȘȞ; cf. h. 29.3 with n.), so ‘naturally (in folk-lore terms)’ (West
on Th. 497, discussing what happened with the stone) she must also have
been the last to emerge from Cronus’ belly, making her the youngest
(੒ʌȜȠĲȐĲȘȞ) member of her generation as well. Il. 4.59, by contrast, on
which this line (like 42) is modeled, identifies Hera as Cronus’ eldest child,
or at least as his eldest daughter. See in general Solmsen (1960) 1–13. The
ugliness and violence of Hesiod’s story is ignored (or elided), except in a
glancing reference via the use of Cronus’ traditional epithet ‘bent-minded’
(see below, and cf. 42–4 n.) and a tacit acknowledgement that power
passed at some point from him to Zeus (23), whose authority is thus af-
firmed, as again in 27, 29. Cf. 220 with n., and contrast Aristonicus FGrH
493 F 5 (quoted in 21–32 n.), in which the setting of Hestia’s request to
remain a virgin is explicitly the aftermath of the overthrow of the Titans.
For the honorable position of simultaneously first and last, see 31–2 with
nn.; h. 1D.9 West; 29.5–6 with n.; Hes. fr. 305.4; Thgn. 1146 ૅǼȜʌȓįȚ Ĳİ
ʌȡȫĲȘȚ țĮ੿ ʌȣȝȐĲȘȚ șȣȑĲȦ (‘Let him sacrifice to Hope first and last’); and
cf. Hes. Th. 34 with West ad loc.
૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ is the old Ionic form of the name and must have been the read-
ing in Ȍ (hence its presence in xp) and probably in ȍ as well, with the
Attic ૽Ǽ- (producing the unlikely hybrid ૽ǼıĲȓȘ rather than the expected
૽ǼıĲȓĮ; cf. h. 24.1; 29.1) offered as a superlinear variant that was adopted
in M and retained somewhere in Ȍ (hence its presence in f). Cf. Introduc-
tion 6. The enjambment adds emphasis, as in e.g. 2, 24.
਴Ȟ țĲȜ: For the relative clause as a typical hymnic feature, here intro-
ducing the first part of Hestia’s story (a summary account of her compli-
cated birth), see 2 n. Cf. 24, where the second and more important part of
the goddess’ story is introduced via another relative clause.
ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ seems originally to have meant ‘of the curved sickle’, in
reference to the tool Cronus used to castrate his father Sky (Hes. Th. 174–
81; cf. 2 n.; Hes. Th. 168, 473, 495). By the time of Hesiod and the Hymns,
however, it was understood ‘of the bent ȝોĲȚȢ’, i.e. ‘ill-intentioned’ or per-
haps simply ‘crafty’; see West on Hes. Th. 18, and note Th. 546 and Op.
148 Commentary
48, where the epithet is used of the tricky Prometheus. Both Cronus and
Zeus are characterized in primarily intellectual terms, as again in 42–3. But
the wiles of the former proved no match for the plans of the latter (below),
and the quiet implication is that Aphrodite’s similarly wide-ranging power
(2–6, esp. 6), which also depends on treachery and deceit (7), may fare no
better, should she as well come into conflict with Zeus (although cf. 36–44
with nn.).
ȕȠȣȜોȚ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ: Although perhaps itself subject to Fate, the
ȕȠȣȜ੽ ǻȚȩȢ (‘will of Zeus’; see LfgrE s.v. B 1d), when exerted, is else-
where presented as a fundamental force in determining the ultimate course
of events in the epic world (esp. Il. 1.5 and Cypr. fr. 1.7, p. 45 Bernabé
ǻȚઁȢ įૅ ਥĲİȜİȓİĲȠ ȕȠȣȜȒ (‘the will of Zeus was accomplished’); cf. 26–7 n.;
Richardson on hDem. 9). Reference to it thus amounts to a quiet assertion
that Zeus now controls the universe, and by implication that Cronus does
not, a message reinforced by the renewed reference to the aegis (cf. 8 with
n.; Janko on Il. 15.308–11), as again in 27 ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ* (cf. 187 ʌȡઁȢ
ǽȘȞઁȢ … ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ with n.; h. 28.7 with n.). The phrase as a whole can
accordingly be read as something approaching a gloss on Hes. Th. 495–6,
where ‘great Cronus of the bent ȝોĲȚȢ’ is said to have been defeated
ĲȑȤȘȞȚıȚ ȕȓȘĳȓ Ĳİ ʌĮȚįઁȢ ਦȠ૙Ƞ (‘by the crafts and might of his son’). The
transposition ǻȚઁȢ ȕȠȣȜોȚ is an independent error in ī and T, and lacks
stemmatic significance.
24 ʌȩĲȞȚĮȞ: In 21–3, Hestia is presented as a conventionally-minded girl
who plays a subordinate role in the intrigues between her father Cronus
and his successor Zeus. The enjambed title ‘lady’ (of goddesses at e.g. Od.
1.14; Hes. Th. 11; hAp. 12), on the other hand, lends her independent maj-
esty, not only providing further motivation for the eagerness of Poseidon
and Apollo to have her hand in marriage, but anticipating and thus in one
sense explaining the astonishing independence with which she acts in 25–8
(contrast ĮੁįȠȓȘ in 21 with n., and see 25–6 n.). Put another way, ʌȩĲȞȚĮȞ
can be understood as an intrusive description that interrupts the narrative to
point proleptically to the extraordinary honors with which Zeus showers
Hestia in 29–32, and so to her position in contemporary cult. Cf. 21 n. on
ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ țȠȪȡȘȚ, 25–7 n. on 26 ੔ į੽ ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ, 32–3.
਴Ȟ țĲȜ: Introducing the second narrative portion of the myth; cf. 22–3
n. The story of the courting of Hestia by Poseidon and Apollo is not attest-
ed elsewhere and may be a nonce detail, which serves to set up the far
more richly developed (and much more certainly traditional) account that
follows of how she refused all suitors (26–8) and was rewarded—or com-
pensated—by Zeus for her decision (29–32). In any case, Poseidon and
Apollo are two of the most obviously eligible male gods, representing the
older and the younger generation of Olympians, respectively; neither takes
a true wife elsewhere in early epic (although Amphitrite appears as Posei-

don’s consort at Hes. Th. 930–1); and the willingness of both to have
Hestia underlines her desirability. Cf. the story of Aphrodite’s own intro-
duction to the company of the gods and the numerous proposals of mar-
riage that follow at h. 6.15–18 with nn.; Solmsen (1960) 7.
25–28 The narrative begins with Hestia’s own feelings (ȝȐȜૅ Ƞ੝ț ਩șİȜİȞ,
sc. ‘to marry’) and then moves to her outward declaration of them, first via
a specific negative response to Poseidon and Apollo (ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ ਕʌȑİȚʌİȞ)
and then with a positive oath that expresses her unwillingness to consider
any similar requests for her hand that might be put forward by others in the
future (੭ȝȠıİ į੻ ȝȑȖĮȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ). The language throughout is vigorous, and
stresses both the force of Hestia’s convictions and behavior (25 ȝȐȜ(Į),
ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ) and the significance and rigor of her oath (esp. 26 ȝȑȖĮȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ, ੔
į੽ ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ, 28 ʌȐȞĲૅ ਵȝĮĲĮ).
25–27 ਴ įȑ: Up to this point, Hestia has been described only in oblique
cases, as the object of the actions, plans, and interests of others. Now she
abruptly and emphatically emerges for a few verses as an agent to reject
the plans others have, implicitly or explicitly, made for her.
For ਕȜȜ੹ … / … ੖ȡțȠȞ, cf. Il. 23.42 (Achilleus’ reaction to a sug-
gestion by the other Achaean leaders that he bathe, despite the fact that
Patroclus has not yet been buried) Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ੒ ਱ȡȞİ૙ĲȠ ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ, ਥʌ੿ įૅ
੖ȡțȠȞ ੕ȝȠıİȞ (‘but he stubbornly refused, and swore an oath as well’),
and the line-final formula ੭ȝȠıİ/੭ȝȠıĮ țĮȡĲİȡઁȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ (Il. 19.127;
Od. 4.253; hHerm. 536). More specific parallels to the language are pre-
served at Il. 9.431 țȡĮĲİȡ૵Ȣ ਕʌȑİȚʌİȞ*, 510 ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ ਕʌȠİȓʌȘȚ*; 19.113
ȝȑȖĮȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ*.
ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ (‘inflexibly, stiffly, stubbornly’) implies extended pleading
by the other parties.
The power and significance of Hestia’s oath (described not just as a
੖ȡțȠȢ but as a ȝȑȖĮȢ ੖ȡțȠȢ, on which see below) are reinforced by her
gesture (for which, see again below), but before that by the comment ੔ į੽
ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ, which is external to the immediate narrative context
and instead adopts proleptically the cultic focalization of 30–2 (where see
n., and cf. 24 n. on ʌȩĲȞȚĮȞ), and which can in this context be seen as re-
calling and appealing to the epic formula ǻȚઁȢ įૅ ਥĲİȜİȓİĲȠ ȕȠȣȜȒ (for
which, see 22–3 n.).
ȝȑȖĮȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ: The adjective captures the impact of the oath on Hestia’s
stunned suitors (cf. above on 25 ıĲİȡİ૵Ȣ), and is echoed in a different way
in the narrator’s own comment in the second half of the line: although the
oath was a ‘great’ one, it has nonetheless been fulfilled.
150 Commentary
Epic deities conventionally swear by the water of the Styx, ‘which is

the greatest and most fearful oath for the blessed gods’ (Il. 15.37–8 = Od.
5.185–6 = hAp. 85–6; cf. 28–29 n.; Hes. Th. 782–806 with West on 400).
But Hestia swears instead by the head of Zeus, and thus by his person, as
Hermes similarly offers to do at hHerm. 274 in his initial confrontation
with his half-brother Apollo over the stolen cows: İੁ įૅ ਥșȑȜİȚȢ, ʌĮĲȡઁȢ
țİĳĮȜ੽Ȟ ȝȑȖĮȞ ੖ȡțȠȞ ੑȝȠ૨ȝĮȚ (‘but if you wish, I will swear a great oath
by the head of my/our father’; for the text, see 38–9 n.). Cf. Il. 15.39–40,
where the terrified Hera appends a reference to her husband’s head and
their marriage bed to the standard divine oath-formula, when she attempts
to convince him that she and Poseidon have not been contriving together
against the Trojans (as, in fact, they have); Sapph. fr. 44A.5 [țİĳȐ]ȜĮȞ ([Ȟ੽
Ĳ੹Ȟ ı੹Ȟ țİĳȐ]ȜĮȞ Page) (quoted in full at 21–32 n.). Hestia thus affirms
Zeus’ newly-won power and authority (cf. 23 with n.), as the narrator does
independently in the second half of the verse, by referring to him not only
as ‘bearer of the aegis’ (cf. 23* with 8 n.) but as ʌĮĲȒȡ (‘master of the
household’, and so in his case ‘of the universe’; see LfgrE s.v. B II 2). At
the same time, Hestia’s physical contact with Zeus (ਖȥĮȝȑȞȘ țİĳĮȜોȢ)
serves to introduce him as a character into the scene, only Poseidon and
Apollo having been present with her up to this point (24), and by implica-
tion gives the action described in the verses that follow a setting in his
house as well; cf. 30 with n. Zeus is accordingly in place to hear Hestia’s
‘great oath’ (26), which is articulated in 28, and which puts him in a deli-
cate situation; see 28–9 n.
28–29 The vow Hestia makes is presumably that she ‘will be a virgin all
her days’ (ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ ਩ııİıșĮȚ ʌȐȞĲૅ ਵȝĮĲĮ; cf. Sapph. fr. 44A.5 ਙȚ
ʌȐȡșİȞȠȢ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ, ‘I will always be a virgin’ (Artemis is speaking); E. Tr.
980–1 (of Athena) ਴ ʌĮȡșȑȞİȚĮȞ ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ਥȟȘȚĲȒıĮĲȠ / ĳİȪȖȠȣıĮ ȜȑțĲȡĮ,
‘who asked her father for virginity, as a way of fleeing the marriage-bed’.
But that is very different from insisting that she will also be į૙Į șİȐȦȞ, and
while the final two words in 28 might be understood as an expression of
Hestia’s own—arguably unreasonable—aspirations, they are better under-
stood as an comment or characterization by the narrator, anticipating the
effect of Zeus’ response to the oath described in 29–32. Cf. 24 ʌȩĲȞȚĮȞ
with n., 26 ੔ į੽ ĲİĲİȜİıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥıĲȓȞ with n.
In the tale of Hestia as it has been presented up to this point, Zeus has
come to power, replacing Cronus (22–3 with n.), and the appearance of
Hestia has produced a conflict between two powerful Olympians, Poseidon
and Apollo, over who her divine husband will be (24). Hestia herself has
chosen to resolve this dispute, not by choosing one suitor over the other,
however, but by rejecting both; and her manner of doing so has literally
drawn Zeus and the question of his authority into the situation (25–7 with
n.). By swearing by Zeus’ head, Hestia affirms his authority over herself
and the other gods. But by tying that affirmation to her own insistence on
remaining a virgin forever, she simultaneously binds his hands at a crucial
moment in cosmic history: if Zeus is now truly king of the gods in place of
his father Cronus (cf. 22–3 with nn.), he must side with Hestia rather than
with either Poseidon or Apollo. Not only does Zeus let Hestia have her
way, therefore, but he offers her enormous honors as well (29–32). The
story of Styx, who offers her allegiance to Zeus at a crucial moment in his
struggle with the Titans and receives enormous rewards—including the
right of her children to remain in his house ‘all their days’ (ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ;
cf. 28 ʌȐȞĲૅ ਵȝĮĲĮ, 30 with n.)—in return (Hes. Th. 397–401), is similar.
For the story of dispute between Zeus and Poseidon over the hand of The-
tis, which had a similar potential to destabilize Zeus’ reign in its earliest
stages, cf. Pi. I. 8.22–32, 39–40 with Dornseiff (1931) 203 (arguing that
the older tale was the model for the Hymn’s story of the unsuccessful
courtship of Hestia); Jouan (1956) 290–302 (suggesting the version of the
story in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women as the specific model here);
Lenz (1975) 142–3 (responding to Jouan); Slatkin (1991), esp. 59–84, 96–
105.
ʌȐȞĲૅ ਵȝĮĲĮ represents a unique reworking of the standard epic for-
mula ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ (generally line-final; cf. 148 with the second apparatus,
209, 221, 240; attested subsequently at e.g. Arat. 20*, 204*; A.R. 4.648*;
Call. fr. 288.51*).
ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ǽİȪȢ (attested in early epic at Il. 4.235; 5.33; 17.630; hDem.
321, but never in this sedes) picks up on ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ in 27
(where see n.), marking the capacity in which Zeus now acts, and thus the
significance of the support Hestia has given him.
țĮȜઁȞ ȖȑȡĮȢ: In Homer, the first syllable of forms of țĮȜȩȢ is invaria-
bly scanned long (note esp. Od. 11.184 ıઁȞ įૅ Ƞ੡ ʌȫ ĲȚȢ ਩ȤİȚ țĮȜઁȞ ȖȑȡĮȢ,
ਕȜȜ੹ ਪțȘȜȠȢ; h. 29.4 (of Hestia) / țĮȜઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ ȖȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ĲȚȝȒȞ) rather
than short, as here and at 261; scanned short at Hes. Th. 585 with West p.
82; Op. 63. Nor is an epic ȖȑȡĮȢ generally given a positive adjective in any
case (although cf. Od. 11.184 (quoted above; perhaps the model for the
phrase here, despite the different scansions of țĮȜȩȞ), 534 ȖȑȡĮȢ ਥıșȜȩȞ
(both from consolatory speeches in the Underworld, and conceivably given
additional emotional coloring as a result); hHerm. 129 ĲȑȜİȠȞ … ȖȑȡĮȢ
(obscure); h. 29.4 (quoted above; of the honor bestowed on Hestia, and
most likely an echo of this line); Il.Parv. fr. 21.8, p. 81 Bernabé ਥʌȓȘȡȠȞ …
ȖȑȡĮȢ), for a special portion of honor is a superlatively fine possession in
and of itself. For ‘giving’ divine honors, cf. Richardson on hDem. 327f.
ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚȠ: Perhaps modeled on Od. 20.307 țĮȓ țȑ ĲȠȚ ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚȠ
ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ĲȐĳȠȞ ਕȝĳİʌȠȞİ૙ĲȠ, where the phrase (attested nowhere else in early
152 Commentary
epic) means ‘instead of a marriage, rather than a marriage’, as in

Phrasicleia’s funerary epigram: ਕȞĲ੿ ȖȐȝȠ ʌĮȡ੹ șİȠࡿȞ ĲȠ૨ĲȠ ȜĮȤȠࡿıૅ ੕ȞȠȝĮ
(CEG 24.2). The point here, on the other hand, is not that Zeus had the
choice of giving Hestia either a ȖȑȡĮȢ or marriage and opted for the former,
but that the ȖȑȡĮȢ he bestowed on her made up in some way for the mar-
riage she had already surrendered voluntarily.
30 The ‘portion of honor’ (ȖȑȡĮȢ) Zeus awards Hestia in 29 is patently a
share of the sacrificial fat (ʌ૙Įȡ) that belongs to him and the other Olympi-
ans, along with the right to a permanent seat in the center of his house
(ȝȑıȦȚ Ƞ੅țȦȚ; for the implied setting of the action, see 26–7 n.); cf. 31–2 n.
But Ĳİ at the beginning of the line (see below) fundamentally alters the
character of the closing portion of the hymn (hence the presence of ‘lively’
ਙȡ(Į); cf. 10, 42, 53, 170, 173; Denniston (1954) 33–5), marking the shift
from epic narratio to cultic descriptio: Hestia’s permanent position and
privileges are in question, and Zeus has a part in the action only by impli-
cation, as the one who once offered her the seat she now occupies (țĮĲૅ …
ਪȗİĲȠ) as well as the fat she took and thus possesses (ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ). The line is
arguably somewhat awkwardly constructed, the shift of subject from Zeus
to Hestia being left unmarked until the feminine participle at the very end.
But the change produced by Ĳİ is enough to carry the listener (or reader)
back to the subject of 25–8, and to convert 29 to the equivalent of a relative
clause that does not interrupt the main flow of the argument.
The bare dative ȝȑıȦȚ Ƞ੅țȦȚ with a form of ਪȗȠȝĮȚ is attested else-
where in early epic only at Hes. fr. 33a.25–6 ȗȪȖȠȣ … / [ੑ]ȝĳĮȜ૵Ț
ਦȗȩȝİȞȠȢ. The digamma at the beginning of Ƞ੅țȦȚ is respected, and there is
accordingly no hiatus.
The aorist of ਪȗȠȝĮȚ is transitive, and țĮĲૅ … ਪȗİĲȠ is best taken as an
intransitive ‘timeless’ hymnic imperfect; see the discussion at Pelliccia
(1985) 180–1.
ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ: For ʌ૙Įȡ in the sense ‘animal fat’, cf. Il. 11.550 = 17.659
Ƞ੆ Ĳȑ ȝȚȞ Ƞ੝ț İੁ૵ıȚ ȕȠ૵Ȟ ਥț ʌ૙Įȡ ਦȜȑıșĮȚ (‘who do not allow him to get
any of the fat from the cows’; of men and dogs keeping a lion at bay), on
which the end of this verse is modeled. The normal epic term for the sub-
stance is įȘȝȩȢ (used in the dative to describe that in which meat or an
animal is ʌȓȦȞ (‘rich’; cognate with ʌ૙Įȡ) at e.g. Il. 23.750; Hes. Th. 538;
hHerm. 120).
31–32 29 (where see n.) leaves little doubt that the house in which Hestia
occupies a central seat of honor and collects a portion of whatever sacrifi-
cial fat appears is in the first instance that of ‘father Zeus’ in the sky or on
Olympus. But these verses reinterpret that concrete, mythical idea cultical-
ly, as meaning that the goddess enjoys a similarly central position of honor
in every house or temple (viz. in the guise of its hearth (ੂıĲȓȘ)), where she
is awarded her own initial share of sacrifices. For Hestia’s/the hearth’s
presence in all houses and temples, cf. h. 24.1–2 (Apollo’s temple at Del-
phi); 29.1–4; Aristonous’ Hymn to Hestia 12–13, p. 165 Powell ȝȠȪȞĮ
ʌȣȡઁȢ ਕȝĳȚȑʌȠȣıĮ / ȕȦȝȠઃȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ਥȡȚĲȓȝȠȣȢ (‘who alone tend the
much-honored altars of the gods with fire (?)’). For her right to a first-fruit
share of sacrifices, cf. h. 24.3 (where the olive oil that oozes from her hair
must represent her share of libation-offerings); 29.5–6 (‘(there are no feasts
where) someone does not begin by pouring libations of honey-sweet wine
to Hestia first and last’); Aristonic. FGrH 493 F 5 (quoted at 21–32 n.),
preserved at ȈVī Ar. V. 846, discussing the proverb ਕĳૅ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȢ ਕȡȤȩȝİȞȠȢ
(‘beginning from Hestia’; alluded to also at Pl. Euthphr. 3a; Crat. 401b).
Zeus and ‘the ੂıĲȓȘ of faultless Odysseus’ are invoked together in a formu-
lar oath at Od. 14.158–9 = 17.155–6 = 19.303–4 = 20.231–2; but she
scarcely seems personified there.
31 treats Hestia’s position in the temples of the gods, 32 her status
among mortals and by implication in their homes. But in both cases human
beings—specifically referred to only here in the embedded Hestia-hymn
(cf. 20, at the end of the embedded Artemis-hymn, with nn.)—are respon-
sible for whatever honors she is awarded, and the other gods function as
her colleagues. For the general idea, cf. hDem. 268–9 (quoted in the first
apparatus), where Richardson detects possible influence from the hAphr.
(note ĲȑĲȣțĲĮȚ*, less awkward here, where the 3rd-person verb is appropri-
ate; but see below on ĲȚȝȐȠȤȠȢ; cf. Introduction 3).
The formal structure of 31 and 32 is very similar: in the first half of the
line up to the feminine caesura, a conjunction and a participial phrase in-
cluding the word ʌ઼ıȚ(Ȟ); the word șİ૵Ȟ; and a feminine adjective describ-
ing Hestia followed by a copulative verb. Variety is supplied by the fact
that in 31 șİ૵Ȟ is a possessive genitive with ȞȘȠ૙ıȚ, whereas in 32 it func-
tions as a genitive of the whole with ʌȡȑıȕİȚȡĮ.
ਥȞ ȞȘȠ૙ıȚ: The plural ȞȘȠ૙ıȚ is attested elsewhere in early epic only at
hAp. 347*, and in the short form at Hes. Th. 990; h. 1.D1 West ਥȞ੿ ȞȘȠ૙Ȣ
(both line-final).
ĲȚȝȐȠȤȠȢ is attested elsewhere in early epic only at hDem. 268 (where
see Richardson’s n.; quoted above). Hoekstra (1969) 56 argues that the
long alpha is an epic Aeolicism, and that the presence of the word in the
hDem. represents the influence of the hAphr. But which of the two poems
is earlier is impossible to say, and direct influence in one direction or the
other need not be assumed in any case. See Introduction 3.
ʌĮȡ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚ is extremely emphatic: no matter how powerful
Aphrodite may be, mortals nonetheless universally honor the virginal
Hestia more. For the idea, cf. D.S. v.68.1 ĲȠȪĲȦȞ (i.e. the children of Cro-
154 Commentary
nus and Rhea) į੻ ȜȑȖİĲĮȚ Ĳ੽Ȟ ȝ੻Ȟ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȞ Ĳ੽Ȟ Ĳ૵Ȟ ȠੁțȓȦȞ țĮĲĮıțİȣ੽Ȟ
İਫ਼ȡİ૙Ȟ, țĮ੿ įȚ੹ Ĳ੽Ȟ İ੝İȡȖİıȓĮȞ ĲĮȪĲȘȞ ʌĮȡ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ ıȤİįઁȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ ਥȞ
ʌȐıĮȚȢ ȠੁțȓĮȚȢ țĮșȚįȡȣșોȞĮȚ, ĲȚȝ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ șȣıȚ૵Ȟ ĲȣȖȤȐȞȠȣıĮȞ (‘of this
group, the story goes that Hestia discovered the establishment of house-
holds, and that on account of this benefaction, among almost all peoples
she has a position in all their homes, and gets honors and sacrifices’).
ʌȡȑıȕİȚȡĮ: ‘eldest’, sc. ‘and thus most deserving of honor’; cf. 22
with n. The word is first attested here and is subsequently treated as poetic:
Ar. Ach. 883 (tragic parody) with Olson ad loc.; Lys. 86 (‘Laconian’); E. IT
963; Orphic fr. 315.3 Kern = 702.4 F Bernabé; conjectural at S. fr.
314.339.
33–35 33 resumes 7 (where see n.), while 34–5 both summarize the content
of 2–6 (although see below) and set up the reference to Aphrodite’s decep-
tion of Zeus in 36 (where see n.). In contrast to 2–6, however, 34–5 re-
spond to the catalogue of three divine exceptions to the goddess’ universal
power in 7–33 with a negative declaration that emphasizes her victims’
historical (perfective) failure to escape her, rather than her own constant,
unchanging influence (not ‘she exercises power over all creatures’, but ‘no
creature has ever escaped her’; contrast 36–40 with n.), while omitting any
mention of animals (cf. 4–5), which by implication lack the capacity to be
persuaded (ʌİʌȚșİ૙Ȟ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ) or deceived (ਕʌĮĲોıĮȚ).
Ƞ੡ ʌȑȡ ĲȚ … / Ƞ੡Ĳİ șİ૵Ȟ … Ƞ੡Ĳİ … ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (literally ‘nothing at
all of either gods or human beings’) is an awkward and unlikely way of
saying ‘not a single god or human being’.
The contrast between the chiastically arranged adjectives ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ and
șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ serves to bring out the force and significance of the former: unlike
human beings, the gods are ‘happy, blessed’ no matter what happens to
them, even if they find themselves unable to resist Aphrodite’s assaults (cf.
34), for they are not subject to death. Cf. 2–3, 38–39 n., 92, 109–10, 167;
Pellizer (1978) 126–9; less pointed contrasts at 142, 149. For the language
of 34, cf. Od. 8.212 Ĳ૵Ȟ įૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ Ƞ੡ ʌȑȡ ĲȚȞૅ*.
36–37 Perhaps echoed at Mosch. 76 ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, ਴ ȝȠȪȞȘ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ țĮ੿ ǽોȞĮ
įĮȝȐııĮȚ; see Introduction 3.
The terms in which Zeus is described render Aphrodite’s ability to lead
him astray an a fortiori proof of her absolute power (34–5). If anyone can
hold out against her, it ought to be the most powerful (and best-married) of
the gods; but she dominates even him. Cf. E. Tr. 949–50 (of Zeus and Aph-
rodite) ੔Ȣ Ĳ૵Ȟ ȝ੻Ȟ ਙȜȜȦȞ įĮȚȝȩȞȦȞ ਩ȤİȚ țȡȐĲȠȢ, / țİȓȞȘȢ į੻ įȠ૨ȜȩȢ ਥıĲȚ
(‘he who has power over the other gods, but is her slave’); Podbielski
(1971) 28–9; Smith (1981a) 38.
ʌȐȡİț ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİ: van Eck (1978) ad loc. argues that ਵȖĮȖİ
(like ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ in 39) cannot be a ‘timeless’ aorist with Ĳİ, on the ground
that ‘the statement that Aphrodite makes Zeus fall in love with mortal
women, is no longer valid in the poet’s days’. But nothing in the text has
drawn a sharp, clear line between ‘heroic time’ and the poet’s own time,
and 2–6 in fact argue for the contrary; and the verbs are best taken as de-
scribing Aphrodite’s regular and continuing (rather than past and vanished)
mode of behavior. Cf. 38–39 n.; Pelliccia (1985) 133–4. Elsewhere in early
epic, ʌȐȡİț ȞȩȠȞ functions adverbially (‘senselessly, thoughtlessly, stupid-
ly’; I adopt West’s accentuation in place of the traditional ʌĮȡȑț); cf. Il.
10.391 ʌȠȜȜોȚıȓȞ ȝૅ ਙĲȘȚıȚ ʌȐȡİț ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİȞ ૠǼțĲȦȡ (‘Hector stupidly
led me astray with many bad suggestions’); 20.133; hHerm. 547. Here, on
the other hand, ʌȐȡİț is treated as in ‘tmesis’ with ਵȖĮȖİ, which takes
ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ as its object. The phrase ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ is Hesiodic (Op. 661; frr.
43a.52; 303.2), but is not attested elsewhere in this sedes.
ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȠȣ: The lightning-bolt is the weapon with which Zeus
overcame the Titans (Hes. Th. 141, 687–704) and which he continues to
wield against his enemies (288 with n.). It thus serves as a symbol of his
power, and the implications of the epithet are teased out in 37: not only is
Zeus objectively ‘the greatest’ (ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ), but he is recognized as such
(ȝİȖȓıĲȘȢ … ਩ȝȝȠȡİ ĲȚȝોȢ), sc. by human beings and other gods as well.
(The anaphora creates a sense of consequence: Zeus is ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ, and he is
accordingly awarded ȝİȖȓıĲȘȢ … ĲȚȝોȢ. For other references to Zeus as
ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ, e.g. Il. 7.202 = 24.308; Hes. Th. 49, 548; h. 23.1.) Aphrodite
nonetheless has the best of him, because she operates in another forum, by
leading his mind astray (ʌȐȡİț … ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİ); cf. 7 n., 22–3 (again im-
plicitly recalling the Titanomachy) with n., 38 with n. Forms of
ĲİȡʌȚțȑȡĮȣȞȠȢ appear routinely in this sedes in early epic (see the second
apparatus), always preceded by a form of ǽİȪȢ, although not in the geni-
tive.
੖Ȣ Ĳİ țĲȜ is reminiscent of the sort of relative clause typical of hymnic
proems; cf. 2 n., 41–3 with n.; Hes. Th. 49 (what the Muses sing about
Zeus) ੖ııȠȞ ĳȑȡĲĮĲȩȢ ਥıĲȚ șİ૵Ȟ țȐȡĲİȚ Ĳİ ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ (‘to what extent he is
the strongest of the gods and the most powerful’).
੖Ȣ Ĳİ ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ is an epic phrase, but is attested elsewhere only at line-
end. ਩ȝȝȠȡİ ĲȚȝોȢ / is likewise Homeric and Hesiodic, but is not combined
elsewhere with an adjective such as ȝİȖȓıĲȘȢ. See the second apparatus.
38–39 36 offers the bald assertion that Aphrodite routinely leads Zeus
astray, while 37 brings out some of the peculiarity of this, by expanding on
the theme of his seemingly insuperable power implicit in ĲİȡʌȚțȑȡĮȣȞȠȢ.
38–9, by contrast, return to the general idea expressed in 36 (36 ʌȐȡİț
ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ ਵȖĮȖİ ~ 38 ĲȠ૨ … ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਥȟĮʌĮĳȠ૨ıĮ), but explore the situa-
156 Commentary
tion more thoroughly and from a different angle, focussing on Aphrodite’s

methods and goals, rather than on the character of her victim. The full
extent and arbitrary nature of the goddess’ power are now spelled out in
İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ and ૧ȘȧįȓȦȢ; the paradox that someone as brilliant as Zeus is
routinely taken in by her is sharpened with the adjective ʌȣțȚȞȐȢ; and what
she tricks him into doing is specified for the first time (ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓȞ).
ĲȠ૨ … ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਥȟĮʌĮĳȠ૨ıĮ combines and reworks two key
verses from the story of the seduction of Zeus in Iliad 14: ੖ʌʌȦȢ
ਥȟĮʌȐĳȠȚĲȠ ǻȚઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ (‘how she could deceive the subtle mind
of Zeus the aegis-bearer’; 14.160, Hera’s plan to lure Zeus into bed; for
ǻȚઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ, cf. ǽȘȞઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ in 36), and ੪Ȣ įૅ ੅įİȞ, ੮Ȣ ȝȚȞ ਩ȡȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ
ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳİțȐȜȣȥİȞ (‘and when he saw her, desire clouded his subtle
mind in the same way …’; 14.294, Zeus’ first sight of the beautified He-
ra; besides 243, where see n., the only other example of ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ in
early epic). Cf. 40–4 n., 54–5 n., 58–68 n. For ਥȟĮʌĮĳȐȦ and its cognates
in similar or related contexts, cf. Il. 14.360 ૠǾȡȘ įૅ ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ʌĮȡȒʌĮĳİȞ
İ੝ȞȘșોȞĮȚ (‘Hera has tricked him into going to bed with her’; Sleep’s re-
port to Poseidon of the success of the plot); Hes. Th. 537 ǻȚઁȢ ȞȩȠȞ
ਥȟĮʌĮĳȓıțȦȞ (‘beguiling the mind of Zeus’; Prometheus cheating the king
of the gods out of his proper share of sacrifices).
For İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ, cf. Hes. Th. 28 İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȦȝİȞ (the Muses’ description
of when they speak the truth) with West ad loc. (‘a common qualification
in telling of a god’s powers’). ਥșȑȜȦ rather than șȑȜȦ is the standard Ho-
meric and Hesiodic form of the verb (cf. Richardson on hDem. 160), and
there is no reason to print İ੣Ĳİ șȑȜȘȚ here or İੁ į੻ șȑȜİȚȢ at hHerm. 274,
even if some or all of the MSS—which have no authority in such mat-
ters—divide the words that way. If ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ in 39, like ਵȖĮȖİ in 36
(where see n.), is a ‘timeless’ aorist, M’s subjunctive ਥșȑȜȘȚ rather than Ȍ’s
optative ਥșȑȜoȚ—an obvious, easy error, if the sense of the main verbs is
misunderstood—is wanted. But either mood would do in any case; cf. Pel-
liccia (1985) 134; Faulkner (2006) 75 n. 40.
For 39, cf. 50, 52, 250.
૧ȘȧįȓȦȢ: often used of divine action (cf. above on İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ), as at
e.g. Il. 16.690; Od. 14.349, 358; Hes. Th. 442; Op. 43 (all *).
ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ is to be taken with Ĳİ in 38; cf. 36–37 n. Forms of the sim-
plex ȝȓıȖȦ are used routinely in early epic of mixing two substances or
groups together (LfgrE s.v. B I 1), and in the middle-passive of having
close contact with other individuals (B I 2 c), especially sexual contact (B I
2 d; cf. 46, 150, 263). But the erotic sense of ıȣȝȝȓıȖȦ (first elsewhere at
Il. 2.753; hHerm. 81; LfgrE s. ȝȓıȖȦ B II 6 suggests that the compound
may refer specifically to combining items or individuals that do not origi-
nally or properly belong together) is first attested here (see LSJ s.v. I.2),
and the use of the active to mean ‘cause others to have sex’ (also 50, 250;
cf. 52 ਕȞȑȝȚȟİ in the same sense) appears to be unexampled outside of the
hAphr. and Parthenius SH 640.4 (although Pelliccia (1990) 188–90 argues
that Thgn. 190 ʌȜȠ૨ĲȠȢ ਩ȝİȚȟİ ȖȑȞȠȢ puns on this usage). -ȝİȚȟ- rather than
ȍ’s metrically indifferent -ȝȚȟ- is the older form of the verb, and I follow
West (2003) in restoring it here, as again in 50, 52, 250.
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓȞ is not an epic formula, and is apparently
adapted from the common Homeric țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ / (3*). The
inclusion of the adjective (unnecessary for the basic sense) brings out the
absurdity of the situation, and thus the power of Aphrodite: Zeus, the
greatest and most-honored of the gods (36 with n.), is forced by her to have
sex not just with women but with mortal women, when he could sleep with
his beautiful immortal wife instead. Cf. 40–4 with n., 46 ਕȞįȡ੿ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ț
with n., 50*, 250*; and note the contrast implicit in 41 ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ
șİોȚıȚ*. Given the cluster of allusions in 38 to the story of Hera’s seduction
of Zeus in Iliad 14, the reference is presumably in the first instance to the
extended catalogue of mortal lovers he offers his wife at 14.317–25—none
of whom, he claims, enflamed him with desire as much as she does now.
Cf. 40 n., 50–2 n. The restriction of interest to Zeus’ specifically mortal
lovers (contrast Il. 14.326–8, where he includes a mention of his affairs
with Demeter and Leto) anticipates his treatment of Aphrodite in 45–6,
where see n.
40–44 are easily understood as a short embedded ‘descriptive’ or ‘attribu-
tive’ hymn to Hera, like those in honor of Athena and Artemis at 8–20 (see
7–33 n., and note the relative clause in 41 with n.). h. 12 (to Hera; printed
and discussed elsewhere in this volume) likewise refers to the goddess’
ancestry (1), beauty (2), status as Zeus’ wife and sister (3), and prominence
(4; see 42 n.), although all as a way of developing the theme of her majesty
(1, 5), which receives no particular attention here, the focus being instead
on Zeus and the peculiarity of his eagerness to seek implicitly inferior mor-
tal lovers. For other early hymns to Hera, see Sapph. fr. 17; Alc. fr. 129.
40 In Iliad 14 (cf. 38–9 n.), Hera must make herself exceptionally attrac-
tive in order to ensure that Zeus feels lust for her. ǹnd although he there
claims to have been ‘mastered by desire’ when he had sex with various
other mortal women and goddesses (14.315–16 ȝૅ … ਩ȡȠȢ … / …
ਥįȐȝĮııİȞ, ‘lust overcame me’; cf. 14.328 ੮Ȣ ıȑȠ Ȟ૨Ȟ ਩ȡĮȝĮȚ țĮȓ ȝİ
ȖȜȣțઃȢ ੆ȝİȡȠȢ Įੂȡİ૙, ‘as much as I now feel lust for you, and sweet desire
has control of me’), he never presents his behavior as mistaken or as re-
quiring an apology, and he certainly makes no mention of forgetting the
existence of his wife. Here, on the other hand, Aphrodite involves Zeus
158 Commentary
with mortal women only after causing Hera—characterized in 41 as the

most beautiful of the goddesses tout court, and in 44 as an ideal spouse—to
vanish from his mind, the implication being that he would never sleep with
anyone other than his wife, were it not for Aphrodite’s intervention, and
that his extramarital adventures represent a grave miscalculation (cf. 36, 38
with 7 n.; Introduction 4).
For the sense of ૠǾȡȘȢ ਥțȜİȜĮșȠ૨ıĮ (‘making him forget Hera’), cf.
Od. 7.221; Kamerbeek (1967) 390.
țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȢ ਕȜȩȤȠȣ Ĳİ: Qualifying Hera as Zeus’ sister and wife
brings out the absurdity of Aphrodite’s ability to make him forget her, and
thus yet again the extraordinary nature of Aphrodite’s power, as 41 does in
a different way. The terms are taken up and explained in order in 42–4. Cf.
h. 12.3 ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥȡȚȖįȠȪʌȠȚȠ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ Ĳİ / with 41 n. The phrase is
otherwise attested only in the accusative; see the second apparatus.
41 ȝȑȖĮ İੇįȠȢ ਕȡȓıĲȘ: An awkward collocation attested nowhere else in
early epic: ȝȑȖĮ must be adverbial with ਕȡȓıĲȘ, to which it lends (arguably
unnecessary) emphasis, but is easily mistaken for an adjective modifying
neuter İੇįȠȢ. İੇįȠȢ ਕȡȓıĲȘ is an epic formula (always of women; see be-
low), but is elsewhere consistently line-final (see the second apparatus).
For the detail, which implicitly rejects Paris’ disastrous judgment that Aph-
rodite was more beautiful, cf. h. 12.2 (also of Hera) ਫ਼ʌİȓȡȠȤȠȞ İੇįȠȢ
਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ.
ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ șİોȚıȚ: a unique modification of the common epic line-
end formula ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚ(Ȟ) (often preceded by a monosyllabic con-
junction or preposition, as here; * at 142, 247 ਥȞ ਕ. ș.; e.g. Il. 15.107 ਥȞ ਕ.
ș.; Od. 13.128 ȝİĲૅ ਕ. ș.; Hes. Th. 120 ਥȞ ਕ. ș., 766 țĮ੿ ਕ. ș.; hHerm. 458
ਥȞ ਕ. ș.); cf. Il. 3.158 ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ șİોȚȢ; Hes. Op. 62 ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚȢ į੻ șİોȚȢ
(neither line-final). The use of ਥȞ + dat. to define the group in comparison
to which someone is ਙȡȚıĲȠȢ is likewise unattested elsewhere in early epic
(at Il. 15.107–8 ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ is to be taken with ĳȘıȓȞ rather than
with the assertion that follows), and all other examples of İੇįȠȢ ਕȡȓıĲȘ use
a genitive of comparison instead. The group to which the woman in ques-
tion is compared is routinely her father’s other daughters (the exception is
Od. 7.57 ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ İੇįȠȢ ਕȡȓıĲȘ, of Periboea—who is described, however,
in the next line as ੒ʌȜȠĲȐĲȘ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ȝİȖĮȜȒĲȠȡȠȢ Ǽ੝ȡȣȝȑįȠȞĲȠȢ, ‘eldest
daughter of great-hearted Eurymedon’) and in Homer serves to explain
how or why she attracted her husband or suitor (exceptions at Il. 6.252,
where Laodice’s presence is a puzzle in any case; hDem. 146 (a purely
decorative detail)). The description of Hera thus implicitly returns to a
point before she and Zeus were husband and wife, and the verses that fol-
low accordingly trace her ancestry (42–3) and offer a summary account of
her marriage (43–4), all this being once again (cf. 22–3 with n.) set allu-
sively within the tale of Zeus’ rise to power. Cf. h. 12.1–4, where the narra-
tive line is even more deeply submerged in a largely ‘descriptive’ or ‘at-
tributive’ structure: Hera was born to Rhea (1); is/was exceptionally beau-
tiful (2); and is the sister and wife of Zeus (3–4).
42–44 unpack and lend narrative content to țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȢ ਕȜȩȤȠȣ Ĳİ in 40
(where see n.). Chiastic structure: (a) an adjective in the accusative, set in
apposition to ‘her’ (Hera) and governed by (b) a third-person singular verb,
the subject of which is provided by (c) a cluster of names and associated
titles and epithets in the nominative; (c´) another name-epithet cluster in
the nominative, serving as the subject of (b´) another third-person verb
governing (c´) a second (and considerably more extended) set of accusa-
tives set in apposition to an implied ‘her/Hera’.
42 is adapted from Il. 4.59 țĮȓ ȝİ ʌȡİıȕȣĲȐĲȘȞ ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ
ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ (‘crooked-counselled Cronus bore me as his eldest daughter’;
Hera asserts her right to have her hostility toward Troy respected by Zeus),
but with țȣįȓıĲȘȞ rather than ʌȡİıȕȣĲȐĲȘȞ (which would do metrically
just as well), as mandated by the narrator’s interpretation of Hes. Th. 454
(see 22–3 n.).
țȣįȓıĲȘȞ (superlative of țȪįȡȠȢ) is proleptic within the implied narra-
tive (for which, see 41 n.): Hera is ‘exceptionally prominent’ not when she
is born, but as a result of her marriage to Zeus (43–4). For the idea, cf. h.
12.4 / țȪįȡȘȞ. Epic vocabulary (cf. 108; of gods at e.g. Il. 2.412 (Zeus);
4.515 (Athena); Hes. Th. 548 (Zeus); hAp. 62 (Leto)), but attested nowhere
else in early epic in this sedes.
For ‘lively’ ਙȡĮ marking a new narrative moment, see 30 n.
For the reference to the conflict between Cronus and Zeus and the ul-
timate victory of the latter implicit in the descriptions of Cronus as
ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ and Zeus as ਙĳșȚĲĮ ȝȒįİĮ İੁįȫȢ, see 22–3 n.; and cf. Rich-
ardson on Il. 24.88. But the mention of Rhea, and specifically as Hera’s
mother rather than as the previous queen of the gods vel sim. (ȝȒĲȘȡ Ĳİ
૽ȇİȓȘ; cf. Hes. Th. 453–4; h. 12.1 ਴Ȟ Ĳȑțİ ૽ȇİȓȘ (where Cronus is ignored)),
adds a strikingly domestic note (cf. 110, 133–42), as if Hera were a beauti-
ful (41) young girl, and Zeus was a suitor who had come to her parents’
house to ask for (or claim) her hand; cf. the characterization of her in 44
with n., and see 109–10 n. (on the differing characterizations of epic moth-
ers and fathers). At Il. 14.295–6, on the other hand, the poet claims that
Hera and Zeus slept together secretly before their parents knew of their
relationship. For the relative ages of Zeus and Hera, see Janko on Il.
14.203–4, who notes that she appears to be imagined there as considerably
younger than her husband (as an archaic Greek bride normally would be;
cf. Hes. Op. 699, quoted below). The characterization of Zeus also serves
160 Commentary
to highlight the wisdom with which he chose his wife, as emerges emphat-
ically in 44, and anticipates the success of the plan described in 45–52.
For 44, cf. Hera’s own description of her status as Zeus’ wife at hAp.
313 (quoted in the first apparatus).
ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ ʌȠȚȒıĮĲȠ țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ: Hera is presented as the ideal
bride and wife both in the eyes of the world (for the sense of ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȢ, see
21 n.) and in her attitude toward her husband (țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ; contrast 134
with n.). That Aphrodite is able to make Zeus forget about her (40) is thus
all the more tragic—or ridiculous—hence the emphatic accumulation of
adjectives. For the ideal of the devoted (țİįȞȒ) wife, see Hes. Th. 607–10;
Op. 699 ʌĮȡșİȞȚț੽Ȟ į੻ ȖĮȝİ૙Ȟ, ੮Ȣ țૅ ਵșİĮ țİįȞ੹ įȚįȐȟİȚȢ (‘Marry a vir-
ginal young woman, so that you can teach her to be devoted to you’). The
singular ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ is not attested elsewhere in early epic, but is
adapted from the line-end formula ĮੁįȠȓȘȚȢ ਕȜȩȤȠȚıȚȞ (Il. 6.250; 21.460;
Od. 10.11; hAp. 148); cf. the numerous Homeric references to the ਙȜȠȤȠȢ
țİįȞȒ (e.g. Il. 24.730; Od. 1.432; 20.57; 22.223). țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ (as opposed
to ȍ’s spondaic țȑįȞૅ İੁįȣ૙ĮȞ) is the older version of the formula, and I
accordingly restore it here, as also in 134. Contrast West on Hes. Th. 264;
Richardson on hDem. 195, both of whom would maintain the paradosis in
such situations.
45–53 The extent of Aphrodite’s power has now been described in consid-
erable detail (1–6, 34–5). That there are three exceptions (7–33, correcting
2–6, esp. 2, 6) shows that this power is not quite universal. There are only
three exceptions, however, and all are goddesses; and the only other sub-
stantial force in the universe, as it is presented here, is Zeus (esp. 8 with n.,
22–9 with nn.)—who is not part of the story of the love-affair of Aphrodite
and Anchises as other sources tell of it (see Introduction 1). That Aphrodite
has treated Zeus badly has been made clear in 36–44, and this abuse might
be seen in retrospect as motivating his action against her. But nothing has
been said explicitly about Zeus’ resentment of Aphrodite’s meddling in his
(seemingly otherwise entirely happy) marriage, nor has she herself yet
emerged as more than a marginal character in the narrative (although she
certainly figures as a cosmic force). Although the narratio (the ‘pars epi-
ca’) arguably begins at 45, therefore, some crucial elements have yet to be
supplied (46–52). After they are in place, the thought in 45–6 is resumed in
53, although this time in a specific rather than a generic form, and the story
of Aphrodite and Anchises, which occupies almost all the rest of the poem,
begins. Cf. Smith (1981a) 39–40; Pelliccia (1985) 134–7.
45–46 Gods and goddesses have sex with one another as well as with hu-
man beings, and this is all Aphrodite’s doing; thus at 24–5 Hestia shows
that she is not subject to Aphrodite’s power (cf. 7, 33) by rejecting two
immortal lovers, while at h. 6.16–17 (where see n.) various male gods beg
for the privilege of marrying Aphrodite herself. Whether Aphrodite is a
virgin when Zeus moves against her is left unspecified and appears not to
matter for the purposes of the Hymn, for Zeus punishes her not simply by
inspiring her with lust, but by inspiring her with lust for a human being, as
she has done repeatedly to him (38–9); the way Aphrodite is described as
mocking her own victims in 48–52, 247–55 suggests that he does so be-
cause this will be, at least potentially, tremendously humiliating. See Intro-
duction 1.
The antecedent of ĲોȚ … Į੝ĲોȚ might easily be taken to be Hera, es-
pecially given the renewed reference to Zeus (also the subject in 43–4),
were it not for the presence of țĮȓ, which strengthens the adversative sense
of įȑ (Denniston (1954) 305), making it clear that the focus of the narrative
has returned to Aphrodite after the explanatory digression in 37–44 on
Zeus’ motivation for punishing her.
ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț is borrowed from Il. 3.139 (quoted ver-
batim in 143), where Iris inspires Helen with sudden longing for ‘her for-
mer husband, her city, and her parents’ (cf. 131 ਱į੻ ĲȠțȒȦȞ with n.); the
phrase is reused again at 53*; and cf. Carm. Naupact. fr. 6.1–2, p. 125
Bernabé ǹੁȒĲȘȚ ʌȩșȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ į૙ૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ / Ǽ੝ȡȣȜȪĲȘȢ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ
ȝȚȖȒȝİȞĮȚ (‘bright Aphrodite cast longing into Aiete to have sex with Eury-
lyte’). But here, as elsewhere in the Hymn, the ੆ȝİȡȠȢ in question is purely
sexual (cf. 143–4), and the epic phrase as reimagined thus recalls the
ȖȜȣțઃȢ ੆ȝİȡȠȢ for sex with Helen that takes hold of Paris at Il. 3.446, and
for sex with Hera that takes hold of Zeus at Il. 14.328. In any case, Zeus’
action represents a sudden turning of the tables on Aphrodite (cf. 2 ਸ਼ Ĳİ
șİȠ૙ıȚȞ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ੯ȡıİ with n.), with his purposes being gradually
unpacked in the verses that follow.
ਕȞįȡ੿ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ț: The adjective is in one sense pleonastic, since
men are by definition subject to death. But it serves to underline the vast
distance that normally separates immortal gods from humans, as also in 39
(where see n.), 50, 109–10, and 167 (with a similarly pleonastic ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚ
… șİ઼Ț), and contains an ironic echo of what appears to be Aphrodite’s
own language (see 50–2 n.). The idea is reinforced by ȕȡȠĲȑȘȢ İ੝ȞોȢ in 47.
The combination is unusual (although cf. Il. 10.440–1 țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠੇıȚȞ … /
ਙȞįȡİııȚȞ; Hes. Op. 484 ਕȡȖĮȜȑȠȢ įૅ ਙȞįȡİııȚ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠોıĮȚ) and
seems to be modeled on the common early epic țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ੿ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ (cf.
3 with n.).
ȝȚȤșȒȝİȞĮȚ: see 38–9 n. The word appears * at Il. 11.438; Cypr. fr.
9.4, p. 49 Bernabé.
ĲȐȤȚıĲĮ momentarily captures Zeus’ focalization in the description of
the motivation for his action (੕ĳȡĮ): he has had enough, and he intends to
162 Commentary
put a stop to Aphrodite’s bad behavior ‘as quickly as possible’. The narra-
tor routinely enjoys access to the motivations and feelings of the poem’s
characters (e.g. 56–7, 83, 84–5, 91), none of whom occupy a similarly
privileged position vis-a-vis one another.
47–49 Zeus’ purpose is defined in 47–8 via two separate verbs: the first—
expressed in the optative—defines his plan (to compel Aphrodite to have
sex with a mortal creature), the second—in the more vivid subjunctive—its
intended consequences (to put an end to her nasty talk after she treats other
gods in a similar way). The working-out of Zeus’ plan is the main subject
of the rest of the Hymn. But here the verb that describes it (ȝȘįૅ …
ਕʌȠİȡȖȝȑȞȘ İ੅Ș) is functionally equivalent to a participle, in that its pri-
mary purpose is to set the circumstances for the description of what actual-
ly matters to him (ȝȘįૅ … / … ਥʌİȣȟĮȝȑȞȘ İ੅ʌȘȚ; for the rough syntax, see
Kamerbeek (1967) 390–1), and the latter accordingly receives the empha-
sis in the verses that follow (although see 50–2 n.). Aphrodite’s general
power over Zeus and the other Olympians is part of the very structure of
the universe (2–6, 34–5), and his plan as articulated here does nothing to
alter that fact. Instead, Zeus is eager to alter Aphrodite’s reaction to her
successes, which is described in 48–9 as boasting like a Homeric victor
over a dead or wounded enemy (ਥʌİȣȟĮȝȑȞȘ) and doing so publicly in the
presence of all the gods (ȝİĲ੹ ʌ઼ıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ; cf. 253 ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ), i.e.
in Zeus’ house, in the hearing of his devoted but much-deceived wife (cf.
40–4 with nn.) and virgin daughters (7–32), and with an air of amused self-
satisfaction (ਲįઃ ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ). That this is a description of how Aphrodite
actually acts, rather than of how Zeus fears she might act, is made clear by
the goddess herself at 247–53, where she laments that, as a consequence of
having slept with Anchises, she will now be spoken of by the other Olym-
pians in the way she previously spoke of them. That realization in turn will
have larger consequences, in that it will put a stop to Aphrodite bringing
gods and human beings together in bed, even if they continue to have sex
with more ‘appropriate’ partners; cf. 247–55 n.
ȕȡȠĲȑȘȢ İ੝ȞોȢ: see 45–6 n.
ਕʌȠİȡȖȝȑȞȘ İ੅Ș: In Homer, the verb (never in the perfect) always has
a concrete sense of separating persons or objects that were previously in
close proximity (e.g. Il. 21.599; 24.238; Od. 21.221), or of keeping apart
persons or objects that might normally and properly come into close prox-
imity (e.g. Il. 8.325; Od. 3.296; 11.503). But Aphrodite has never been in a
mortal’s bed, nor is there any reason why she automatically ever should be,
and here the participle means something more like ‘immune from, excused
from contact with’.
ਥʌİȣȟĮȝȑȞȘ İ੅ʌȘȚ: The hiatus is mitigated by caesura.
49 is syntactically unnecessary, since the identity of Į੝ĲȒ in 47 is clear,

but is included to further characterize Aphrodite.
ਲįઃ ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ: In Homer, expressions of this sort refer to laughter
that is openly malicious (Il. 2.270; 11.378; Od. 20.358) or at least springs
from the discomfiture of another (Il. 21.508; 23.784; Od. 21.376), which is
to say that—as here—the pleasure is taken by the individual who laughs,
and is not generally shared by the one laughed at.
ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: see 16–17 n. Given the immediately preced-
ing words, it is tempting to see the epithet as here specifying the expression
on the goddess’ face as she gloats on her triumphs.
50–52 ‘Lively’ ૧Į marks the transition from the extended, colorful discus-
sion of where and how Aphrodite speaks (48–9), to the more significant if
less richly developed (see below) matter of what she says. Whether Aphro-
dite’s boasts are supposed to be generic or are tailored to particular occa-
sions is unclear, as again at 247–53. But Zeus takes them personally (cf.
45–9 with nn.), and the implicit narrative gains considerable force, and
Zeus’ concerns become more substantial and comprehensible, if we imag-
ine Aphrodite gleefully (cf. 49) regaling the assembled Olympians (cf. 48)
with the embarrassing details of every new mis-adventure into which she
has enticed him or some other god, ruining one divine dinner-party after
another. In any case, 36–44 can now be read retrospectively as encapsulat-
ing Aphrodite’s own maliciously sarcastic report of her handling of ‘the
great Zeus’ (note the echo of 39 in 50), and 47 must preserve the observa-
tion that capped all such speeches and motivated the king of the gods’
decision as to how to proceed against her (45–6 with n.): ‘But I myself
have never slept with a mortal—and I have certainly never produced a
mortal child!’ (cf. 253–5).
34–40 are full of emotion and detail, and focus on the extent of Aphro-
dite’s power and how she gets her way with Zeus in particular. Here, on
the other hand, the development is all in the immediately preceding verses
(48–9), and we are offered only a bare-bones account of the content of
Aphrodite’s boast. What is new is the claim that male gods, at least, regu-
larly produce mortal children by the mortal women with whom they sleep,
and in context the implication is that this is a particularly stinging part of
Aphrodite’s comments to the assembled Olympians. That she ultimately
not only sleeps with Anchises but becomes pregnant by him thus puts a
decisive end to her haughty talk, and apparently to the nasty behavior on
which it depends as well (247–55, esp. 255, with n.). The contrast with
Iliad 14.315–22, where Zeus not only lists the children his various mortal
lovers have produced for him, but describes them in a way that reveals his
pride in the sort of men they were (14.318, 320, 322), is striking; cf. 38–9
n., 40 n.
164 Commentary
The chiastic composition of 50–1 (șİȠઃȢ … țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ /

… țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠઃȢ ȣੈĮȢ … ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ) is balanced by the variation of
case among the elements, which creates two syntactically symmetrical
lines (conjunction - particle - accusative - verb - dative). The three-fold
repetition of the adjective țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȩȢ, stressing the contrast between
gods and human beings ‘subject to death’ (cf. 35 n., 38–9 n.), is sufficient-
ly pointed and polemical to sound like an echo of Aphrodite’s own rheto-
ric; cf. above. Faulkner (2008) observes that ȍ’s ȣੂİ૙Ȣ appears as a voca-
tive (Il. 5.464) and nominative (e.g. Od. 15.248; 24.387; Hes. fr. 26.29)
form elsewhere in early epic, but never as an accusative (as in Attic), and I
adopt his correction of the text.
ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ: cf. 39* with n., 250 ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟĮ ț.
Ȗ.* with n.
The subject of ĲȑțȠȞ must be supplied somewhat awkwardly from the
dative at the end of the previous line. M’s ĲȑțȠȞ rather than Ȍ’s ĲȑțİȞ is
accordingly the lectio difficilior (despite van Eck (1978) ad loc.); the latter
is a crude miscorrection of the text via assimilation to the singular forms
ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ in 50 and ਕȞȑȝİȚȟİ in 52, as if the subject were still Aphrodite.
52 echoes 50, but there is no balancing verse for 51. That Aphrodite
and Anchises (53) had a child was presumably well-known to the original
audience of the Hymn. But no reference to the boy is made until 255, when
Aphrodite abruptly reveals that she is pregnant. Her mockery of the other
Olympians does not appear to be elliptical or discreet, and the failure to
note explicitly that goddesses sometimes bear children to their mortal lov-
ers, just as mortal women do to the male gods with whom they sleep, is
better assigned to the poet than to her, as part of a strategy of keeping any
direct reference to Aeneas out of the story for the moment (but see 53 n.).
For goddesses sleeping with mortals, cf. 218–38 (Dawn and Tithonus) with
n.
ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ (as in 50) would have done just as well metrically as
ਕȞȑȝİȚȟİ in 52, and the latter must represent deliberate variatio. Forms of
ਕȞĮȝȓıȖȦ are used elsewhere in early epic of ‘mixing up’ food and the
like (Il. 24.529 (of Zeus’s jars of good and evil); Od. 4.41 (of fodder for
horses); 10.235 (Circe mixes a kukeon for Odysseus’ men)); for the exten-
sion of the verb to refer to causing others to have sex, cf. 39 n.
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȠ૙Ȣ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ: The dative plural form of the expression is
attested nowhere else in early epic and is presumably adapted from the
genitive plural (for which see 3* with the second apparatus).
53 With the final background details in place and Aphrodite now estab-
lished as a (generally unlikeable) character, 53 resumes the thought in 45–
6, along with much of the specific language in 45, but with the specific
personal name ‘Anchises’ in place of the generic ‘a mortal man’. Cf. 45–52 n.
ਝȖȤȓıİȦ: * at 126; cf. 77 -ȘȞ* with apparatus, 84 -ȘȢ* with apparatus,

108 -Ș*. The standard epic form of the genitive of the name is the tetrasyl-
labic ‘Aeolic’ ਝȖȤȓıĮȠ (e.g. Il. 2.819; 5.247, 468; Il.Parv. fr. 21.9, p. 81
Bernabé), with a long second alpha, whereas here and at 12 the Hymn uses
the later ‘Ionic’ ending -İȦ in synizesis; cf. Janko (1982) 48–9. Anchises
is not identified via a patronymic (contrast 177 with n.), title, or the like,
and is instead treated as an established character. As such, however, he
belongs in Troy, and the description that follows in 54–5 is accordingly
wanted to put him in a different and thus at least partially unexpected set-
ting, outside the city’s walls.
‘Lively’ ਙȡĮ marks the transition to the next—very important—portion
of the narrative.
ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț: cf. 45*–6 n.
54–55 combine and rework elements of the story of Anchises and Aphro-
dite as given at Il. 2.820–1 (Aeneas) ĲઁȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ Ĳȑțİ į૙ૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ, /
੍įȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ șİ੹ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ (‘whom bright Aphrodite bore to
Anchises, after sleeping with him on the flanks of Mount Ida, a goddess
with a mortal’; cf. 255, where the end of Il. 2.821 is quoted, with n.); 5.313
(Aeneas’ mother Aphrodite) ਸ਼ ȝȚȞ ੢ʌૅ ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ Ĳȑțİ ȕȠȣțȠȜȑȠȞĲȚ (‘who
bore him to Anchises, who was tending cows’); Hes. Th. 1009–10 (Aphro-
dite bore Aeneas) ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ ਸ਼ȡȦȚ ȝȚȖİ૙ıૅ ਥȡĮĲોȚ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ / ੍įȘȢ ਥȞ
țȠȡȣĳોȚıȚ ʌȠȜȣʌĲȪȤȠȣ ਱ȞİȝȠȑııȘȢ (‘after having pleasant sex with the
hero Anchises on the heights of windy, spring-filled Mount Ida’); Introduc-
tion 1.
ĲȩĲ(İ) specifically establishes the existence of a narrative present in the
Hymn for the first time, by fixing the temporal location of the main strand
of the story, involving Aphrodite (cf. 53, 56 with n.), vis-a-vis a second
strand, involving Anchises, before the two are knit together in 76. But the
adverb simultaneously distinguishes between a ‘once upon a time’, when
Anchises was merely an obscure bachelor cowherd living on the slopes of
Mount Ida with his fellow herdsmen (cf. 92 n.), and an implied mythic
‘present’, in which he is known as an important figure at Troy and above
all else as the father of Aeneas (cf. 50–2 n.).
The description focuses only gradually on the person of Anchises, and
begins instead with an elaborate account of his general whereabouts, fol-
lowed by a reference to the nature of his activity there, before finally men-
tioning his appearance. Although the text is not expressly organized as
such, it functions as something approaching a set of directions reminiscent
of those Zeus might be imagined giving Aphrodite: ‘Go to the highest part
of Mount Ida; look for cowherds there; and pay particular attention to the
best-looking among them.’ Cf. 56 n. This is nonetheless all generic infor-
mation, which ultimately requires correction (78–80 with n., and see below).
166 Commentary
ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİıȚȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ combines one Homeric

line-end formula (ਥʌૅ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ ੕ȡİııȚȞ / Il. 5.523; ਥȞ ਕțȡȠʌȩȜȠȚȢ
੕ȡİııȚȞ / Od. 19.205) with a slightly altered version of another
(ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ; * at Il. 14.157, 307; 20.59, 218; 23.117; cf. Cypr. fr.
5.5, p. 48 Bernabé (quoted below)*). But cowherds (55) belong on the
sides of mountains rather than on their summits (see below), which are
sacred—and thus dangerous—spots better suited to an encounter with a
deity than to grazing animals (see 18 n.; Buxton (1992) 5, 7, 9, with prima-
ry references); cf. Hes. Th. 1010 (quoted above), and contrast the more
naturalistic location of Aphrodite’s encounter with Anchises on Ida’s lower
spurs at Il. 2.821 (quoted above). The verse can be read inter alia as a re-
working of Il. 14.157 ǽોȞĮ įૅ ਥʌૅ ਕțȡȠĲȐĲȘȢ țȠȡȣĳોȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ:
like Zeus when Hera first spies him (cf. 56 ĲઁȞ … ੁįȠ૨ıĮ), Anchises is
high up on Mount Ida, although in his case merely ‘among the high peaks’
rather than ‘on the very highest peak’, as befits the king of the gods. For
other connections to Iliad 14, cf. 38–9 n., 40–4 n., 58–68 n., 66–68 n., 81–
3 n., 87–90 n. (on 89), 149–50 n. For a form of ੕ȡȠȢ + chorographic geni-
tive, cf. Cypr. fr. 5.5, p. 48 Bernabé (of Aphrodite, the Nymphs, and the
Graces) țĮȜઁȞ ਕİȓįȠȣıĮȚ țĮĲૅ ੕ȡȠȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȚįȐțȠȣ (better ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ; see
below) ૓ǿįȘȢ.
ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ: Springs produce vegetation and are thus a matter
of concern to herdsmen (cf. 68 ૓ǿįȘȞ … ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ with n., 78 ȞȠȝȠઃȢ
țȐĲĮ ʌȠȚȒİȞĲĮȢ with n.), which is to say that the adjective helps explain
what Anchises is doing here. The paradosis ʌȠȜȣʌȚįȐțȠȣ is a deliberate,
misguided correction by someone who took the adjective to be 2nd-
declension; cf. Ȉ Il. 14.157 (describing this as a ‘profoundly crude’ error).
ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȞ ȕȠ૨Ȣ: cf. Il. 21.448–9 ȕȠ૨Ȣ ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȢ / ૓ǿįȘȢ ਥȞ
țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ ʌȠȜȣʌĲȪȤȠȣ ਫ਼ȜȘȑııȘȢ (of Apollo in Laomedon’s employ), from
which the phrase (reworking Il. 5.313, quoted above) appears to be drawn.
For the seemingly pleonastic ȕȠ૨Ȣ, e.g. Il. 21.448 (quoted above); Od.
20.235 = 21.199 ȕȠ૵Ȟ ਥʌȚȕȠȣțȩȜȠȢ ਕȞȒȡ; Hes. Th. 445 ȕȠȣțȠȜȓĮȢ į੻
ȕȠ૵Ȟ. Sheep and goats consume almost anything green and can handle
even the most rugged terrain. But cows need land that is better-watered and
more level, and in the summer, when the grass in the lowlands burned out
in the heat, they were properly grazed not on mountain-tops but in mead-
ows (ȜİȚȝ૵ȞİȢ) on mountains’ flanks (țȞȘȝȠȓ), as in Il. 21.448–9 (quoted
above); hHerm. 70–2; cf. Il. 2.820–1; Od. 4.335–8 (a doe); Dodds on E.
Ba. 677–8.
įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȠȚțȫȢ: The reference to Anchises’ physical ap-
pearance prepares for the description of Aphrodite’s first glimpse of him
and its effect on her at 56–7 (where see n.).
56–57 In 53–5 the setting of the narrative changes abruptly, via the de-
scription of Zeus’ actions in regard to Aphrodite (53), from the presence of
the king of the gods (presumably in his halls; cf. 48 with n.) to Mount Ida,
where Anchises is watching his cows (54–5). Now it emerges that this
movement has carried Aphrodite along with it, for she too has seen An-
chises (ĲઁȞ … ੁįȠ૨ıĮ) and in particular has been struck by how handsome
he is (cf. 55 įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȠȚțȫȢ). While the text never says as
much, therefore, it is as if she has already made her way to Troy, although
explicit mention of her first trip to Ida has been elided from the narrative,
in order that her (second) arrival there can be described in detail in 68–74,
after the side-journey to Paphos that prepares for it (58–67). Cf. 58–60 n.
In 143–4 (cf. 73–4 with n.), it is explicit that ਩ȡȠȢ is an internal reac-
tion to the intrusion of ੆ȝİȡȠȢ from another source. țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ੆ȝİȡȠȢ
İੈȜİȞ can accordingly be understood as in the first instance a gloss on
਱ȡȐıĮĲ(Ƞ) that emphasizes the agency of Zeus (cf. 54–5 n.): he cast desire
into Aphrodite’s heart (53); she fell in love with Anchises when she saw
him, meaning that Zeus’ use of desire was successful; and į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ marks
the logical and temporal connection between the two events. But merely
seeing the individual who becomes the love-object has the same captivat-
ing effect on the viewer in 84–91 (where see nn.), as also at Il. 14.293–4;
16.181–2 ĲોȢ į੻ țȡĮĲઃȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ / ਱ȡȐıĮĲૅ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ ੁįȫȞ (‘when
powerful Argeiphontes saw her with his eyes, he fell in love with her’; one
of the models for this verse: cf. the first apparatus, and note 118 ~ Il.
16.183 with n.); Hes. frr. 140 Ǽ੝ȡȫʌȘȞ … ǽİઃȢ șİĮıȐȝİȞȠȢ … ਱ȡȐıșȘ
(‘when Zeus gazed upon Europa, he fell in love’); 145.13 ĲોȢ įૅ ਙȡૅ [ਥȞ
ੑ]ĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ ੁįઅȞ ਱ȡȐııĮĲȠ (‘when he saw her, then, with his eyes, he
fell in love’). Along with the shift of subject to Aphrodite from Zeus in
these verses, therefore, the description of precisely how the goddess fell in
love with Anchises offers a second perspective on the action, which em-
phasizes her experience rather than Zeus’ intentions (which were realized
in the event, but did not really guide it) and allows į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ to be under-
stood as marking a relationship not between Zeus’ plans and their conse-
quences (above), but between Anchises’ extraordinary physical attractive-
ness (55 įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȠȚțȫȢ) and Aphrodite’s reaction to it.
ȍ’s įਵʌİȚĲĮ would be the only example of crasis in the Hymn, and I
print instead į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ (with correption), as also in 209. į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ/įਵʌİȚĲĮ
is common in early epic, but is elsewhere always found immediately before
the feminine caesura, except in 209 ĲઁȞ į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ*.
The reference to Aphrodite as ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚįȒȢ serves to keep the reason
for what is happening to her in focus (cf. 16–17 n., 45–52), with the further
ironic twist that she is now the one in love (and feeling the emotions that
go along with the experience), as again in 65 and 155.
168 Commentary
਱ȡȐıĮĲ(Ƞ): elsewhere always ਱ȡȐııĮĲ(Ƞ) (Il. 20.223; Od. 11.238;

hHerm. 130), except at Il. 16.182 (quoted above). The verb (which sets the
narrative direction for everything to come) is emphasized via enjambment.
ਥțʌȐȖȜȦȢ (* at Il. 2.357; 9.238; Od. 5.340; Cypr. fr. 25.2, p. 59 Ber-
nabé) effectively characterizes the experience of Aphrodite, who is driven
into sudden, frantic action (58–67) in response to this abrupt, unexpected
onslaught of lust.
țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ … İੈȜİȞ: Singular țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮ appears routinely in early
epic in this sedes (e.g. Il. 1.193; Od. 15.211; Il. parv. fr. 32.12, p. 86 Bern-
abé; hAp. 70), generally as part of the line-end formula țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮ țĮ੿
țĮĲ੹ șȣȝȩȞ /; the plural țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ is attested only at Il. 15.61 Į੄ Ȟ૨Ȟ ȝȚȞ
ĲİȓȡȠȣıȚ țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ (part of the plan Zeus articulates to Hera after she
seduces him) metri gratia. But elsewhere țĮĲȐ always governs the noun
(‘in his mind’ vel sim.), and the main verb generally has an accusative
direct object (as in Il. 15.61, quoted above) or governs a fear-clause (e.g.
hAp. 70–1) or the like. Here, by contrast, țĮĲȐ is in ‘tmesis’ with İੈȜİȞ,
and ĳȡȑȞĮȢ is the direct object of the verb.
੆ȝİȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ: an otherwise unattested variant of the epic formula
੆ȝİȡȠȢ Įੂȡİ૙ (* at Il. 3.446; 14.328; Hes. Op. 618; hAp. 461), the second-
ary-tense equivalent of which is elsewhere ੆ȝİȡȠȢ ਸ਼ȚȡİȚ (* at Od. 22.500;
hHerm. 422).
58–68 A cento (‘patchwork’) of lightly adapted verses and verse-fragments
drawn from two erotic Homeric scenes: (1) Od. 8.362–6 (Aphrodite flees
to Cyprus, having been caught in bed with Ares by her husband Hephaes-
tus, and exposed to the mocking scrutiny of the other male gods); and (2)
Il. 14.166–86, esp. 169–72 (Hera retreats to her chamber to beautify her-
self, in order to improve her chances of seducing Zeus), 282–3 (Hera and
her ally Sleep arrive on Mount Ida to carry out their plan; for additional
echoes of Il. 14 in the Hymn, see 170–1 n., 242–3 n.), all bound together by
bits of free composition. See in general Podbielski (1971) 36–9; Lenz
(1975) 118–23; Sowa (1984) 67–94; and (for the general relationship of the
hAphr. to the text of the Iliad and the Odyssey, for which this passage is
one of the most significant bits of evidence), Introduction 3.
(1) Od. 8.362–6
ਲ įૅ ਙȡĮ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ ੆țĮȞİ ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ,
ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞā ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȒİȚȢ.
਩ȞșĮ įȑ ȝȚȞ ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ ȜȠ૨ıĮȞ țĮ੿ Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ
ਕȝȕȡȩĲȦȚ, ȠੈĮ șİȠઃȢ ਥʌİȞȒȞȠșİȞ Įੁ੻Ȟ ਥȩȞĲĮȢ,
ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਩ııĮȞ ਥʌȒȡĮĲĮ, șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ.
Smile-loving Aphrodite, then, made her way to Cyprus,
to Paphos; her sacred precinct and altar, rich with sacrifices, are there.
There the Graces washed her and anointed her with immortal
oil, the sort that covers the gods who are forever,
and dressed her in lovely clothing, marvellous to behold.
Although Aphrodite is said in Od. 8 to visit Paphos, ‘where her sacred
precinct and altar were/are’, the text contains no reference to a temple. Nor
are we told that the goddess is washed, anointed, and dressed within her
precinct, which is instead mentioned only to explain why she chose the city
of Paphos in particular to visit. Indeed, while the action is in one sense
localized on Cyprus, it takes place entirely on the divine level, with no hint
of any mortal presence beyond the adjective șȣȒİȚȢ (suggesting sacrifice
and thus cult) or of a fear of prying mortal eyes. That Aphrodite’s divine
attendants bathe her when she arrives, and then anoint her with oil and
dress her, is part of the convention of arrival-scenes (e.g. Od. 4.48–50),
modestly adapted to suit the arrival of a god (8.365). But the bath is also
easily understood as intended to render the goddess presentable again after
her lovemaking with Ares, just as part of the point of dressing her in ‘love-
ly garments’ must be that she arrived from Olympus naked. The ultimate
result of the care the Graces bestow on Aphrodite, at any rate, is to restore
her to her proper divine appearance (note especially the explicitly norma-
tive 8.365), and this is the end of the story rather than its beginning.
(2) Il. 14.169–72, 281–3
਩Ȟșૅ ਸ਼ Ȗૅ İੁıİȜșȠ૨ıĮ șȪȡĮȢ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ,

ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȘȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ਕʌઁ ȤȡȠઁȢ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲȠȢ
ȜȪȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ țȐșȘȡİȞ, ਕȜİȓȥĮĲȠ į੻ Ȝȓʌૅ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ
ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȦȚ ਦįĮȞ૵Ț, Ĳȩ ૧Ȑ Ƞੂ ĲİșȣȦȝȑȞȠȞ ਷İȞ.
* * *
Ĳઅ ȕȒĲȘȞ ȁȒȝȞȠȣ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ૓ǿȝȕȡȠȣ ਙıĲȣ ȜȚʌȩȞĲİ
਱ȑȡĮ ਥııĮȝȑȞȦ, ૧ȓȝĳĮ ʌȡȒııȠȞĲĮ țȑȜİȣșȠȞ.
૓ǿįȘȞ įૅ ੂțȑıșȘȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ, ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ.
She went inside there and closed the shining doors.
First she cleaned all the stains from her luscious
skin with ambrosia, and covered herself thoroughly with
deathless sweet oil, which had been perfumed for her.
* * *
The two of them set off, leaving behind Lemnos
and the city of Imbros, clothed in mist, swiftly making their way.
And the two of them came to spring-filled Ida, the mother of wild beasts.
The Iliad-poet begins his account of Hera’s retreat to her chamber with a
reference to its construction by Hephaestus and in particular its absolute
privacy, guaranteed by a bar no other god could move (14.166–8). When
Hera closes the doors behind her (14.169), therefore, she can do whatever
she chooses, with no fear of being discovered. Hera’s need for secrecy also
170 Commentary
explains why she does everything for herself, rather than relying on divine
servant-women. The account of her toilette occupies 17 lines (14.170–86),
almost all of them ignored by the Hymn-poet. She is dirty and accordingly
begins by washing her body clean (14.170–1), after which she anoints
herself with a special supply of perfumed oil (14.171–2), whose scent is
described, via a retrospective account of its production, in a pair of verses
that were corrupt already in antiquity (14.173–4). She then anoints and
braids her hair; dresses elaborately; puts on jewelry, a head-scarf, and san-
dals (14.175–86); and leaves her chamber to find Aphrodite (14.187–9; cf.
64 with n.) and eventually Sleep, with whom she travels, hidden inside a
cloud, to Mount Ida to find Zeus (14.281–3).
The Hymn-poet begins with Odyssey 8 (58–9 ~ Od. 8.362–3), but in-
troduces a temple reminiscent of Hera’s chamber (note 60 = Il. 14.169; 63
= Il. 14.172), which Aphrodite enters, closing the doors behind her (58,
60). The gesture serves to create a private space for the goddess, and thus
implies potential spectators, who are presumably to be identified with the
human worshippers whose presence has been hinted at in the emphatically
repeated adjective șȣȫįȘȢ (58–9; for the word’s implications, see above on
Od. 8.363). 61–3 (where see nn.) thus offer a privileged glimpse within the
temple, where the goddess’ divine attendants care for her, using what is
now presented as sacred oil, i.e. dedications that have been made to her and
are accordingly stored in her sanctuary (contrast Il. 14.172–4). The re-
mainder of the process by which Aphrodite is beautified is described only
in retrospect, in the aorist participles in 64–5, and in a distinctly summary
fashion, as comparison with the elaborate account of Hera’s dressing and
ornamentation in Il. 14.176–86 makes clear. Detailed description of the
goddess’ clothing and jewelry, and thus of her transformed physical ap-
pearance, is reserved for 86–90 and 162–5, where it is used to great effect;
see nn. ad locc. The emphasis here is instead almost entirely on odors:
Aphrodite’s temple and altar are fragrant with the scent of sacrifice (58,
59); Cyprus itself smells good, at least when she leaves it (66 with n.); and
the only part of the Graces’ care of the goddess that is explicitly described
involves the washing and perfuming of her body—here never said to have
been dirty in the first place (contrast Il. 14.170–1, and cf. above on Od.
8.364). Greek gods in general, like places associated with them and in
particular with their birth or arrival, have a distinct—and, one assumes,
profoundly appealing—odor (hDem. 277–8 (Demeter) with Richardson on
275ff (p. 252), with references to later material and secondary sources;
hHerm. 231–2 (Maia’s cave, containing the baby Hermes); h. 7.36–7 (Dio-
nysus); Thgn. 8–9 (Delos when Apollo is born there); [A.] PV 114 (the
Oceanids); E. Hipp. 1391 (Artemis); Ar. Av. 1715–16; Ath. 9.395a); for
Aphrodite’s delicious smell in particular, see Cypr. frr. 4–5, pp. 46–8
Bernabé; cf. 175 (the goddess wears a crown of violets); S. fr. 361.
58–60 For the description of Aphrodite’s cult center, cf. in general Sapph.
fr. 2.1a–4 (lacunose and corrupt) . . ĮȞȠșİȞ țĮĲȚȠȣ[ı] / … ȞĮ૨ȠȞ / ਙȖȞȠȞ
੕ʌʌҕ[ĮȚ … ] ȤȐȡȚİȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਙȜıȠȢ / ȝĮȜȓ[ĮȞ], ȕҕ૵ȝȠȚ įૅ ਩‫ۃ‬Ȟ‫ۄ‬Ț șȣȝȚȐȝİ/ȞȠȚ
[ȜȚ]ȕҕĮȞȫĲȦ‫ۃ‬Ț‫‘( ۄ‬coming down from … a sacred temple where … a lovely
grove of apple trees, and altars are in it, smoking with incense’).
ਥȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ įૅ ਥȜșȠ૨ıĮ: Where Aphrodite’s journey begins is left un-
specified (although cf. 56–7 n.), and the manner of her travel is treated in a
similarly oblique manner as a result; see below, and contrast 66–7 with n.,
117–25. For Aphrodite’s connection to Cyprus, cf. 2 with n.
șȣȫįİĮ ȞȘઁȞ ਩įȣȞİȞ: For the expression, cf. Od. 7.80–1 (of Athena)
੆țİĲȠ įૅ ਥȢ ȂĮȡĮș૵ȞĮ țĮ੿ İ੝ȡȣȐȖȣȚĮȞ ਝșȒȞȘȞ, / į૨Ȟİ įૅ ૅǼȡİȤșોȠȢ
ʌȣțȚȞઁȞ įȩȝȠȞ; hDem. 355 șȣȫįİȠȢ ਩ȞįȠșȚ ȞȘȠ૨, 385 ȞȘȠ૙Ƞ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ
șȣȫįİȠȢ. The verb often has implications of descent (cf. LfgrE s.v. B I 1
aĮ–bȕ) and may thus hint that Aphrodite swoops down to her temple from
the sky (cf. 67 with n.).
șȣȫįİĮ and șȣȫįȘȢ (cf. 63 ĲİșȣȦȝȑȞȠȞ, 66 İ੝ȫįİĮ; Od. 5.264
șȣȫįİĮ*; 21.52 șȣȫįİĮ*; Porter (1949) 269 ‘The idea of fragrance … is
developed by repetition to be the dominating theme of the passage’) is
easily taken to represent the goddess’ own focalization, as she enters her
temple and catches the scent that fills it and that comes from the altar on
which offerings are continually burnt to her (cf. below). For the interest in
temples, cf. 31.
ਥȢ ȆȐĳȠȞ and ਩ȞșĮ įȑ Ƞੂ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȫįȘȢ in 59 do not ad-
vance the action, but function instead as separate retrospective explanatory
glosses on the two actions described in 58 (‘She went to Cyprus—
specifically to Paphos—and entered her fragrant temple—since her sacred
precinct and fragrant altar are/were there’); ਩Ȟșૅ ਸ਼ Ȗૅ İੁıİȜșȠ૨ıĮ in 60
accordingly resumes șȣȫįİĮ ȞȘઁȞ ਩įȣȞİȞ in 58 after the interruption. The
temenos surrounds the temple, while the altar stands before it; together
they define both its setting and its function (as a residence for the deity to
whom the place belongs, and who can accordingly be approached via sacri-
fice); cf. 100–2 with nn., 267–8 with n.
ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȫįȘȢ: cf. hAp. 87 șȣȫįȘȢ … / ȕȦȝઁȢ țĮ੿ ĲȑȝİȞȠȢ. ȉhe
standard early epic expression is ȕȦȝȩȢ Ĳİ șȣȒİȚȢ (in this sedes at Il. 8.48;
23.148; Od. 8.363; cf. Hes. Th. 557 șȣȘȑȞĲȦȞ ਥʌ੿ ȕȦȝ૵Ȟ), ‘her altar
rich with sacrifices’, the adjective șȣȫįȘȢ (‘fragrant with incense’) being
reserved for clothing (Od. 5.264; 21.52; cf. hDem. 231, of Demeter’s
țȩȜʌȠȢ (‘bosom’)), chambers (Od. 4.121; hDem. 244, 288), and in the
Hymns of a temple (hDem. 385) and of Olympus as the residence of the
gods (hDem. 331; hHerm. 322). The repetition of the word nonetheless
172 Commentary
serves to make the point that the smell that distinguishes Aphrodite’s tem-
ple is identical with the one that distinguishes her altar, and thus that it
originates there.
ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ obliquely suggests the presence of mortal worshippers, who
see the doors only from the outside; cf. 236 with n.
61–65 For the typical elements of the bathing- and dressing-scene, see
Arend (1933) 124–6.
61–63 The repetition of ਩ȞșĮ (cf. 59, 60) is in part a consequence of quot-
ing both epic exemplars exactly, but also of the fact that the location of the
action—better put, the location from which it is seen or smelled—is suffi-
ciently unstable in this section of the poem that it must be repeatedly speci-
fied.
ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ ȜȠ૨ıĮȞ țĮ੿ Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ: The Graces serve Aphrodite as
epic slave-women do their masters or their masters’ guests; cf. the formular
ĲઁȞ/ĲȠઃȢ įૅ ਥʌ੿ Ƞ੣Ȟ įȝȦȚĮ੿ ȜȠ૨ıĮȞ țĮ੿ Ȥȡ૙ıĮȞ ਥȜĮȓȦȚ (‘slave-women
washed him/them then and anointed him/them with olive oil’) at Il. 24.587;
Od. 4.49; 8.454; 17.88. The goddess is accordingly passive throughout the
procedure (cf. 64 ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ, 65 țȠıȝȘșİ૙ıĮ), but the Graces’ anointing,
dressing (64), and ornamenting her with jewelry (65) also echoes the be-
havior of mortal functionaries who provided similar services for cult-
statues in temples (including anointing them with oil; cf. h. 9 introductory
n.; 24.3 with n.; Call. h. 5.29–32). For the Graces (a byword for beauty:
e.g. Il. 17.51; Od. 6.18; Hes. fr. 215) as Aphrodite’s servants and attend-
ants, e.g. Il. 5.338; Od. 18.194; Cypr. frr. 4–5, pp. 46–8 Bernabé; Olson on
Ar. Pax 41–2 (with further references); and cf. 95–6 n., 292–3 n.; hAp.
194–6; h. 27.15 with 13–20 n.; Gantz (1993) 54.
62 and 63 are drawn unadapted from Odyssey 8 and Iliad 14, respec-
tively, resulting in the juxtaposition of the cognate adjectives ਕȝȕȡȩĲȦȚ at
the beginning of the first verse and ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȦȚ at the beginning of the se-
cond. The lines describe the oil with which Aphrodite is anointed (61) in
radically different but complementary terms. In 62, this is merely an exam-
ple of the sort of substance (ȠੈĮ) the gods always have on their skin, and
the oil thus belongs to the divine sphere and is timeless. In 63, by contrast,
it represents a specific supply (Ĳȩ ૧Į) of perfumed oil prepared for Aphro-
dite at some point in the past (by the Graces? or her human attendants?)
and available for her in her temple in Paphos now, and thus belongs to the
mortal sphere and to history.
The meaning of ਦįĮȞ૵Ț (a Homeric hapax) was obscure already in an-
tiquity, as was whether it took a rough or a smooth breathing. (If the
breathing is taken to be smooth, a digamma is wanted, both here and in the
Homeric model, to avoid hiatus.). The Iliad-scholia connect the word with
ਲįȪ (‘sweet’; ȈAbT), but also gloss it İ੝ȫįİȚ (‘fragrant’; ȈT; cf. Hsch. Ț
166); that they may be guessing does not mean that they are wrong, and if
their interpretation is along the right lines, Ĳȩ ૧Ȑ Ƞੂ ĲİșȣȦȝȑȞȠȞ ਷İȞ can be
understood as serving to explain how Hera (and Aphrodite) have such oil:
it is sweet/fragrant because it has been perfumed for them. The MSS of the
Hymn have ਦĮȞ૵Ț (or ਥĮȞ૵Ț), which Hurst (1976) 23–5, and Janko ad loc.
argue should be restored at Il. 14.172, which Janko then translates ‘for her
immortal dress, which was scented’. But a reference to Hera’s clothing is
out of place at that point in the narrative in Iliad 14, as it would be here as
well, and it is better to assume a simple uncial omission (Ǽǻǹȃ > Ǽǹȃ)
and print ਦįĮȞ૵Ț (Clarke) in the Hymn instead.
64–65 These verses in one sense continue the description of Aphrodite’s
visit to her temple: after the Graces wash and anoint her with oil (61–3),
she dresses and puts on jewelry. But the participles are retrospective, so
that the final stages of the goddess’ preparations are described only after
they take place, as background for her hasty departure for Troy (66–7 with
nn.), while the Graces—whose duties to their mistress are presumably not
to be thought of as coming to an end, the moment her bath is over—
abruptly drop out of the narrative, except to the extent that their agency is
implicit in ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ and especially țȠıȝȘșİ૙ıĮ. For the lack of any
explicit description here of Aphrodite’s clothing and jewelry, see 58–68 n.
64 is modeled on Il. 14.187 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ șȒțĮĲȠ
țȩıȝȠȞ (‘but after, in fact, she put all her costume about her skin’; sum-
ming up Hera’s preparations, before she goes to seek out Aphrodite as part
of the next phase of her plan to seduce Zeus); reworked again in 171–2
İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ. / ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ į૙Į șİȐȦȞ, where see n.,
and at h. 6.14.
İ੣ and țĮȜȐ represent Aphrodite’s own assessment of the situation: only
after she is satisfied with her choice of garments and with how they have
been arranged, tied, and pinned (cf. 163–4 with nn.), does she leave her
temple on Cyprus for Troy.
Especially after 61–3, ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘ (* at e.g. Il. 7.207; 23.67 ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗
İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਪıĲȠ; Od. 16.210 ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ İ੆ȝĮĲૅ ਩ȤȠȞĲȚ; h. 6.14 ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘;
27.17 [Hes.] Sc. 183) is implicitly erotic: what matters most about the god-
dess’ clothing is the sweet-smelling flesh hidden beneath it; cf. 84–91, esp.
88–90, with nn., 162–7 with nn., 171–2 with n.
Ȥȡȣı૵Ț țȠıȝȘșİ૙ıĮ: Because Aphrodite is a goddess, her jewelry is
of course all made of gold (cf. 16–17 n.). But the detail is also appropriate
to the role she adopts on Mount Ida (117–20 with nn.), where she pretends
to be a marriageable young woman snatched away from a dance at a festi-
val; cf. h. 6.11–13 n.; Il. 2.872 ੔Ȣ țĮ੿ ȤȡȣıઁȞ ਩ȤȦȞ ʌȩȜİȝȩȞįૅ ੅İȞ ਱ȪĲİ
174 Commentary
țȠȪȡȘ (‘who went to war wearing gold, like a young woman’); E. El. 176–
7, 190–2; Ar. Ach. 257–8 with Olson ad loc.
ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚį੽Ȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: see 56–7 n.
66–77 For the arrival-motif (departure, arrival, discovery of the individual
sought, description of the surroundings, and address), see Arend (1933)
28–34; here the visitor does not speak first, as is generally the case.
66–68 are modeled on Il. 14.227–8 (Hera, now as beautiful as she can
make herself, leaves her private chamber on Olympus and heads in the
direction of Troy) ıİȪĮĲૅ ਥĳૅ ੂʌʌȠʌȩȜȦȞ ĬȡȘȚț૵Ȟ ੕ȡİĮ ȞȚĳȩİȞĲĮ, /
ਕțȡȠĲȐĲĮȢ țȠȡȣĳȐȢ, Ƞ੝į੻ ȤșȩȞĮ ȝȐȡʌĲİ ʌȠįȠ૙ȚȞ (‘She set off for the
snowy mountains of the Thracian horsemen, the highest peaks, nor did she
touch the ground with her feet’), 281–3 (Hera and Sleep make their way to
Mount Ida) Ĳઅ ȕȒĲȘȞ ȁȒȝȞȠȣ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ૓ǿȝȕȡȠȣ ਙıĲȣ ȜȚʌȩȞĲİ, / ਱ȑȡĮ
ਦııĮȝȑȞȦ, ૧ȓȝĳĮ ʌȡȒııȠȞĲİ țȑȜİȣșȠȞ. / ૓ǿįȘȞ įૅ ੂțȑıșȘȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ,
ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ (‘The two of them set off, leaving behind Lemnos and the
city of Imbros, clothed in mist, swiftly making their way. The two of them
came to spring-filled Ida, the mother of wild beasts.’) But for 64, 66, cf.
also Il. 7.207–8 (of Ajax) Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ ਩ııĮĲȠ ĲİȪȤİĮ, /
ıİȪĮĲૅ ਩ʌİȚșૅ (‘But when he had put all his gear about his skin, then he set
off’).
Aphrodite’s second journey to Troy, unlike her first (see 56–7 n.), is
described in some detail, since this time she does more than simply gaze at
Anchises and immediately rush off elsewhere.
ıİȪĮĲૅ ਥʌ੿ ȉȡȠȓȘȢ and ʌȡȠȜȚʌȠ૨ıૅ İ੝ȫįİĮ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ describe the same
action from different perspectives: Aphrodite ‘rushed off in the direction of
Troy’ by ‘leaving fragrant Cyprus behind’. 67 traces her course, and she
reaches her destination in 68. The goddess’ eagerness to be off is brought
out by ıİȪĮĲ(Ƞ) (used of rapid, vigorous motion; * at Il. 6.505; 7.208;
14.227; Od. 5.51; hDem. 43) and ૧ȓȝĳĮ, as well as by the lack of any men-
tion of landmarks or intermediate stops along the way (contrast Il. 14.225–
30). Cf. the similar sense of a single-minded mission implicit in ੁșઃȢ
ıĲĮșȝȠ૙Ƞ in 69.
İ੝ȫįİĮ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ: cf. 58–68 n., 58–60 n. The implication is perhaps
that Troy—and specifically the cowyard on Mount Ida (69)—smells no-
where near as sweet as (the goddess’ altar and temple on) Cyprus. Cf. Il.
18.575; Od. 10.411 (where țȩʌȡȠȢ (‘dung’) is used via synecdoche to refer
to the place where cows are kept penned up at night). The paradox thus
brings out in a different way (cf. above) the strength of the impulse that
drives Aphrodite to seek out Anchises. van Eck (1978) ad loc. advocates
for M’s țોʌȠȞ; but no mention has been made of a garden belonging to
Aphrodite, only of a temple, sanctuary, and altar (58–9), and the reading
presumably represents a correction after rho dropped out of the text.
੢ȥȚ ȝİĲ੹ ȞȑĳİıȚȞ: an odd tangle of Homeric language and motifs, the
verbal (but not the intellectual) model for which is Od. 16.264, where the
gods are said to reside ‘up high in the clouds’ (/ ੢ȥȚ ʌİȡ ਥȞ ȞİĳȑİııȚ; cf. Il.
15.192 ǽİઃȢ įૅ ਩ȜĮȤૅ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ ਥȞ ĮੁșȑȡȚ țĮ੿ ȞİĳȑȜȘȚıȚ; 20.155 ǽİઃȢ įૅ
ਸ਼ȝİȞȠȢ ੢ȥȚ; Hes. Th. 529 ǽȘȞઁȢ ૅȅȜȣȝʌȓȠȣ ੢ȥȚ ȝȑįȠȞĲȠȢ; Op. 204 / ੢ȥȚ
ȝȐȜૅ ਥȞ ȞİĳȑİııȚ (where an eagle flies)). At Il. 14.282, from which the
second half of 68 is drawn direct, Hera and Sleep travel from Lemnos to
Troy ਱ȑȡĮ ਦııȐȝİȞȦ (‘clothed in mist’), rendering them invisible to Zeus
(and everyone else); cf. Il. 5.186; 15.308, where Apollo wraps himself in a
cloud (ȞİĳȑȜȘ) to prevent mortals from seeing him. But Aphrodite does not
travel in secret, and the idea in the first half of 68 is drawn instead from
passages such as Il. 5.867, where Ares ascends from the Trojan plain ‘into
wide heaven’ on his way to Olympus ੒ȝȠ૨ ȞİĳȑİııȚȞ (‘along with the
clouds’, sc. because they too are found high in the sky), for she as well
must move emphatically upward in order to land high on Mount Ida—
whence she descended in 58 (see n. on ਩įȣȞİȞ)—in 68 (cf. 54).
Allen’s ȞȑĳİıȚȞ ૧ȓȝĳĮ, a simple correction of M’s ȞȑĳİıȚ ૧ȓȝĳĮ, is
guaranteed by the explicit reworking of Il. 14.282–3 (see above). But Ȍ’s
ȞİĳȑİııȚ șȠ૵Ȣ (which features the standard early epic dative plural form of
ȞȑĳȠȢ (e.g. Il. 5.867*; 17.594; Od. 5.293, 303*; 16.264*; Hes. Op. 204*))
scans, and the variant must represent a deliberate correction of the text
after nu-moveable was lost and (more important) the expected tetrasyllabic
form of the noun drove out the unexpected trisyllabic form, requiring that
the now unmetrical ૧ȓȝĳĮ be replaced with șȠ૵Ȣ (* at e.g. Il. 3.325, 422;
5.722; Od. 5.243; 8.443; [Hes.] Sc. 418).
૓ǿįȘȞ … ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțĮ, ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ proleptically captures the expe-
rience of Aphrodite, as she makes her way, in the guise of the Homeric
ʌȩĲȞȚĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ (cf. Il. 21.470, of Artemis), along the mountain’s flanks (69),
noting its many springs and trailed by the wild animals that depend on
them (70–2; for the connection between springs and the presence of ani-
mals, cf. Il. 16.823–5). The goddess’ experience of the Trojan countryside
is nonetheless bounded and shaped by a set of fundamentally pastoral con-
cerns that represent the perspective and interests of Anchises and his fellow
cowherds, and presumably of the poem’s original audience as well; cf. 54
ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ with n., 122–4 n.
68–112 Omitted in M, leaving Ȍ (through its various descendants) as the
only witness to this portion of the text; cf. Introduction 6.
69–75 Aphrodite could just have easily have landed on Ida directly outside
the cowyard (cf. Od. 1.102–3, where Athena moves in a single bound from
176 Commentary
Zeus’ house on Olympus to Odysseus’ front door), which is to say that 76

could have followed directly after 68 (75 being a transitional verse). But
the account of the goddess’ journey along the mountainside offers a pre-
liminary glimpse of her in action, before she comes into contact with An-
chises, casting her (via the nature of the animals that trail behind her) as a
wild, powerful, and potentially dangerous force rooted in a world where
human beings are interlopers at best. For the scene as a whole, cf. Il.
13.27–8 (sea-monsters cavort in Poseidon’s train as he rides through the
waves, similarly providing the arriving deity with an entourage); Lenz
(1975) 123–4 (arguing that this ought really to be understood as two sepa-
rate arrival scenes); and see in general Podbielski (1971) 39–41.
Aphrodite’s handling of the wild creatures that greet her as she makes
her way along the slopes of Mount Ida might easily be (re-)imagined, in
naturalistic style, as a seriatim process, as one pair of animals after another
emerges from the brush, is infected with desire by her, and is sent off to
bed. But the story as it is presented in the Hymn is of a grand parade that
forms out of nowhere—i.e. out of the information and narrative possibili-
ties implicit in ૓ǿįȘȞ …, ȝȘĲȑȡĮ șȘȡ૵Ȟ in 68—and then comes to an abrupt
but timely conclusion: As Aphrodite makes her way to the cowyard (69 ȕો
įૅ ੁșઃȢ ıĲĮșȝȠ૙Ƞ įȚૅ Ƞ੡ȡİȠȢ), a richly described procession of savage
beasts stretches behind her (69 Ƞ੄ į੻ ȝİĲૅ Į੝ĲȒȞ – 72 ਵȚıĮȞ), eager for her
attention (70 ıĮȓȞȠȞĲİȢ) but as yet unnoticed by her. When the goddess is
at last said to discover the animals trailing her (72 ੒ȡȩȦıĮ; that the action
cannot be understood as purely sequential is apparent from the use of the
present rather than the aorist participle), she is delighted (72 ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿
ĲȑȡʌİĲȠ șȣȝȩȞ) and responds with a display of her particular divine power
(73; cf. 4–5). At that point her escorts desert her (73–4), and she according-
ly arrives at Anchises’ door (75) alone.
69 ੁșઃȢ ıĲĮșȝȠ૙Ƞ anticipates 75 (where see n.), and comes as a surprise,
since the obvious implication of 54–5 and its models is that Anchises and
Aphrodite will meet and make love in the cow-pastures high on the slopes
of Mt. Ida. For Aphrodite’s impatience to find Anchises, see 66–8 n.
70–71 Although the language is drawn from many sources, the first half of
70 is clearly dependent on Od. 10.218–19 (of the wild animals charmed by
Circe, who greet Odysseus’ men as dogs greet their master, sure that he has
a treat for them) ੬Ȣ ĲȠઃȢ ਕȝĳ੿ ȜȪțȠȚ țȡĮĲİȡȫȞȣȤİȢ ਱į੻ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ / ıĮ૙ȞȠȞ
(‘thus the wolves and hard-clawed lions fawned about them’; cf. the re-
working of Od. 10.479 (of Odysseus’ men in Circe’s halls) at 74); the end
of 70 and the beginning of 71 are drawn from Od. 11.611 (Heracles’
shield; cf. the echo of Od. 11.612 ਫ਼ıȝ૙ȞĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ at 11*) ਙȡțĲȠȚ Ĳૅ
ਕȖȡȩĲİȡȠȓ Ĳİ ıȣ੻Ȣ ȤĮȡȠʌȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ (‘savage bears, boars, and taw-
ny lions’); and the rest of 71 reflects the influence of Il. 13.102–3 (of
਩ȜĮĳȠȚ, ‘does’) Į੆ Ĳİ țĮșૅ ੢ȜȘȞ / șȫȦȞ ʌĮȡįĮȜȓȦȞ Ĳİ ȜȪțȦȞ Ĳૅ ਵȚĮ
ʌȑȜȠȞĲĮȚ (‘which in the woods are the food of swift wildcats and wolves’).
Not only are the animals that trail Aphrodite dangerous, making their
eagerness to fawn on her like pets (cf. above) striking and paradoxical, and
thus a demonstration of her extraordinary power over them (cf. 4–6), but
all of them are predatory carnivores (੩ȝȠĳȐȖȠȚ), explaining the absence of
wild boars (contrast Il. 17.20–2; Od. 4.456–7; 11.611 (quoted above)) and
the presence instead of panthers (unusual in catalogues of this sort). None
of the animals is described as making a sound (contrast 159 ȕĮȡȣĳșȩȖȖȦȞ
Ĳİ ȜİȩȞĲȦȞ with n.), and in the end Aphrodite sees (72) rather than hears
them.
ʌȠȜȚȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȪțȠȚ: Wolves (Keller (1909) i.87–8) are also called ‘gray’
at Il. 10.334; hHerm. 223, and are associated with mountains at Il. 16.158–
9 (bracketed by West (2003), following Leaf and Wilamowitz), 352–5; Od.
10.212 ȜȪțȠȚ … ੑȡȑıĲİȡȠȚ; h. 14.4–5. They eat deer and the like at Il.
13.102–3; 16.158–9, and lambs and kids at Il. 16.352–3 (cf. Il. 22.263–4),
but only when shepherds have foolishly allowed their animals to stray, and
they make no raids on isolated farmsteads, as lions do (below). Wolf-skins
are therefore much rarer, and seemingly much less ‘heroic’, than lion-skins
in particular; cf. 159–60 with n. Dolon wears one, along with an equally
disreputable weasel-skin on his head, at Il. 10.334–5.
ȤĮȡȠʌȠȓ Ĳİ ȜȑȠȞĲİȢ: Lions (Keller (1909) i.24–61) are the epic preda-
tors par excellence and are associated with mountains at e.g. Il. 5.554–5;
16.823–5; Od. 6.130 ȜȑȦȞ ੑȡİıȓĲȡȠĳȠȢ (‘a lion bred in the mountains’).
They eat not just sheep and goats (e.g. Il. 5.136–42; 10.485–6; 13.198–
200) and wild animals of various sorts (e.g. Il. 16.756–8; [Hes.] Sc. 402–
3), as wolves do as well (above), but also cattle (e.g. Il. 5.161–2; 11.172–6;
12.293; 15.630–6), which they sometimes get by raiding farms (e.g. Il.
5.554–7; 17.657–60; Od. 6.130–4). They are therefore in constant conflict
with herdsmen, for whom they pose an on-going threat; cf. 159–60 n.
ȤĮȡȠʌȩȢ is a standard epic epithet of lions (see the first apparatus, and add
hHerm. 569; of dogs at hHerm. 194), but its meaning is obscure; perhaps
‘brown’ (thus Maxwell-Stuart (1981)), balancing ‘gray’ (of the wolves) in
the first half of the line.
ਙȡțĲȠȚ: Bears (Keller (1909) i.175–83) are treated as fearsome crea-
tures at Od. 11.611; hHerm. 223; h. 7.46 (ਙȡțĲȠȞ … ȜĮıȚĮȪȤİȞĮ, ‘a shag-
gy-necked bear’; one of the animals Dionysus uses to terrify the sailors
who kidnap him), but otherwise receive no attention in early epic, match-
ing the lack of an epithet for them here, as also in 159. For the asyndeton, see
West on Hes. Th. 245: ‘Omission of the copula Ĳİ is quite common in such
178 Commentary
lists, but normally only after the first name in the line’ (accompanied by a
long list of examples).
ʌĮȡįȐȜȚȑȢ Ĳİ șȠĮ੿ ʌȡȠțȐįȦȞ ਕțȩȡȘĲȠȚ: ʌȐȡįĮȜȚȢ is a generic term
for a large wildcat (‘panther, leopard’; cf. Il. 10.29 ʌĮȡįĮȜȑȘȚ … /
ʌȠȚțȓȜȘȚ, ‘a spotted ʌȐȡįĮȜȚȢ-skin’; Semon. fr. 14 ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ … /
ʌȐȡįĮȜȚȞ, ‘a ʌȐȡįĮȜȚȢ in the mountains’; Keller (1909) i.62–4); described
as feeding on ਩ȜĮĳȠȚ (‘does’) at Il. 13.102–3, and used as an image of mar-
tial strength and fury at Il. 17.20; 21.573–8; cf. Od. 4.457 (one of the crea-
tures into which the Old Man of the Sea transforms himself in his violent
attempt to escape Menelaus and his men). The careful description of the
wildcats’ swiftness (sc. in pursuit) and consistent, relentless ferocity to-
ward their prey brings the description of the parade of savage animals that
follows Aphrodite to a climax, while simultaneously serving to bring out
how peculiar their behavior—like that of the normally equally bloodthirsty
wolves, lions, and bears that accompany them—is in the presence of the
goddess.
ʌȡȠțȐįȦȞ: deer of some sort. Homer uses ʌȡȩȟ rather than ʌȡȠțȐȢ:
Od. 17.295 (of Odysseus’ old dog Argos, whom the young men used to
take out) ĮੇȖĮȢ ਥʌૅ ਕȖȡȩĲİȡĮȢ ਱į੻ ʌȡȩțĮȢ ਱į੻ ȜĮȖȦȠȪȢ (‘to hunt wild
goats, ʌȡȩțİȢ, and hares’). Cf. the similar pair įȩȡȟ/įȠȡțȐȢ.
72–74 The animals that follow Aphrodite are abruptly overwhelmed by
lust not through any choice or action of their own—no access is offered to
their thoughts or emotions, if they have any—but because she casts ੆ȝİȡȠȢ
into their breasts. Cf. h. 27.6–9 n. Vision is nonetheless associated again
with the origin of desire (cf. 56–7 n.), although in this case it is the goddess
of love herself who does the seeing.
ਵȧıĮȞ (Ilgen’s correction of ȍ’s late, non-epic ਵ(Ț)İıĮȞ) is found * at
Il. 10.197; 13.305; 17.495; Od. 20.7; 24.13.
ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİıȓ (* at 193, 223; e.g. Il. 4.245; Od. 16.436; Hes. Op. 274;
hHerm. 164 -ȚȞ) is in one sense pleonastic with ĲȑȡʌİĲȠ șȣȝȩȞ (for the
expression, cf. the more economical hAp. 342 ਲ į੻ ੁįȠ૨ıĮ / ĲȑȡʌİĲȠ ੔Ȟ
țĮĲ੹ șȪȝȠȞ (‘When she saw that, her heart was pleased’); less striking
parallels at Il. 20.23; Od. 5.74; hAp. 204). But comparison with 193, 276
(both ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİıȓ*) suggests that the prepositional phrase serves to make
clear that Aphrodite’s reaction to her first glimpse of the animals has a
distinct intellectual element (‘when she thought about it’ vel sim.), creating
a logical link between the moment she spies them following her (੒ȡȩȦıĮ)
and her internal (emotional) response (ĲȑȡʌİĲȠ șȣȝȩȞ), which motivates
the outward reaction described in 73.
țĮ੿ ĲȠ૙Ȣ ਥȞ ıĲȒșİııȚ ȕȐȜૅ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ has no specific epic model; for the
expression, cf. 53 Ƞੂ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț with n.; Il. 5.513 ਸțİ,
țĮ੿ ਥȞ ıĲȒșİııȚ ȝȑȞȠȢ ȕȐȜİ ʌȠȚȝȑȞȚ ȜĮ૵Ȟ; 11.802 = 13.468 ~ Od. 17.150
੬Ȣ ĳȐĲȠ, Ĳ૵Ț įૅ ਙȡĮ șȣȝઁȞ ਥȞ੿ ıĲȒșİııȚȞ ੕ȡȚȞİ; hAp. 462 ੬Ȣ ĳȐĲȠ țĮȓ ıĳȚȞ
șȐȡıȠȢ ਥȞ੿ ıĲȒșİııȚȞ ਩șȘțİ.
ıȪȞįȣȠ is attested nowhere else in early epic, although cf. Il. 10.224 /
ıȪȞ Ĳİ įȪૅ ਥȡȤȠȝȑȞȦ; Od. 9.289 / ıઃȞ į੻ įȪȦ ȝȐȡȥĮȢ (in both of which the
preposition is actually in ‘tmesis’ with the participle), 429 ıȪȞĲȡİȚȢ*
(‘three by three, in groups of three’). Subsequently at Pi. P. 3.81 and in
5th/4th-c. prose.
țȠȚȝȒıĮȞĲȠ: * also at Il. 1.476; 9.713; Od. 12.32; 14.524; 19.427. For
the euphemism, cf. 167 ʌĮȡȑȜİțĲȠ with n.; Il. 2.335; Od. 8.295; Hes. Th.
213; LfgrE s.v. B 2 b; English ‘sleep with’.
țĮĲ੹ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ: Cf. 124* with n. For ਩ȞĮȣȜȠȢ in the sense
‘haunt’, cf. Hes. Th. 129; h. 14.5; 26.8 țĮșૅ ਫ਼ȜȘȑȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ /.
75 With the wild beasts that accompanied Aphrodite across the mountain
now out of sight (74), the attention of the narrative returns to the goddess
herself, who has reached the destination set for her in 69. What follows
presupposes and can thus be read against the beginning of Odyssey 14,
where the hero comes face to face with his faithful swineherd Eumaeus.
Both scenes are set at an isolated farmstead outside of and above the city
(cf. Od. 14.2 Ȥ૵ȡȠȞ ਕȞૅ ਫ਼ȜȒİȞĲĮ įȚૅ ਙțȡȚĮȢ (‘over the wooded countryside,
through the heights’), and feature an encounter between a disguised and
dissembling visitor and a herdman left behind for the day by his fellow-
workers, who have taken the animals out to graze or forage (cf. Od. 14.25–
8). Not only is Eumaeus a slave charged with keeping his master’s pigs
(Od. 14.3–4) rather than a hero (77) working temporarily (note ĲȩĲ(İ) in 54
with n.) as a cowherd, however, but Odysseus catches him in the middle of
the humble task of cutting a pair of sandals out of an ox-hide for himself
(Od. 14.23–4), whereas Anchises is playing a lyre like a gentleman (80
with n.).
țȜȚıȓĮȢ İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣȢ: At Od. 14.5–22, Homer offers a detailed, cir-
cumstantial description of Eumaeus’ beautifully built and managed farm,
which nonetheless features only a single building, the hut in which he and
the other herdsmen eat and sleep (e.g. Od. 14.45 țȜȚıȓȘȞįૅ ੅ȠȝİȞ (‘let us go
into the hut’, sc. for a meal)) and which serves as concrete evidence of his
devotion to his absent master (cf. Od. 14.3–4). Here the plural suggests a
larger establishment. But the elaborate architectural features of the place
must be imagined on the basis of the adjective, which in itself says nothing
more than that this is the type of place a hero (or aspiring hero) might
build—or have built for himself; cf. 157–60 n., 173–4 ਩ıĲȘ ਙȡĮ țȜȚıȓȘȚā
İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣ ‫ۃ‬į੻‫ ۄ‬ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ.
76–77 76 is largely repeated in 79, although with Anchises in the nomina-
tive rather than the accusative; 78–80 (or even 81) might thus have fol-
180 Commentary
lowed directly after 75. The intervening verses, however, serve to resume
and correct 54–5—Anchises may work routinely (iterative ȕȠȣțȠȜȑİıțİȞ)
as a cowherd on the slopes of Mount Ida, but he is not out in the pasture
with the animals at the moment, although he remains just as handsome as
ever—while providing what the repeated insistence that everyone else had
left the farmstead for the day with the animals implicitly characterizes as
crucial information for understanding the action that follows. Cf. 168–9
(the impending return of the other herdsmen motivates Aphrodite’s depar-
ture) with n. Although Aphrodite nominally ‘discovers’ Anchises at this
point in the narrative, therefore, ĲઁȞ įૅ Ș੤ȡİ ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ is in fact anticipa-
tory (‘—when she came upon him in the farmstead, he had been left behind
…’). ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȞ ȠੇȠȞ țĲȜ. thus represents not what the goddess herself
knows or perceives, but background information provided by the narrator.
The narrative returns to Aphrodite’s own interests and perceptions only in
80, after the resumptive 79. For encounters between humans and immortals
routinely located in isolated spots, see Pelliccia (1995) 273–7.
The words ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ ਸ਼ȡȦĮ are borrowed from Hesiod’s account of Ae-
neas’ birth at Th. 1009* (dative). ਸ਼ȡȦĮ represents a perspective that is both
entirely human (Anchises is the sort of man who might interact or even
sleep with a goddess—who for her part would describe him as merely an-
other mortal creature subject to death (50–2 with nn., 247–55 with nn.))
and firmly rooted in the audience’s own time, after the events described or
anticipated in the Hymn, which establish his claim to heroic status, rather
than in the time of the characters, for whom this is in the future.
șİ૵Ȟ ਙʌȠ țȐȜȜȠȢ ਩ȤȠȞĲĮ: cf. 55 įȑȝĮȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਥȠȚțȫȢ. The re-
newed mention of how handsome Anchises is, serves as a reminder that
Aphrodite is already consumed with desire for him (cf. 56–7) and of why.
What follows accordingly takes up the separate question of how he re-
sponds to the sight of her (84–91, esp. 91).
78–80 For the function of these verses in the narrative, and the emphatic
echo of 76 in 79 (Aeneas was alone!), see 76–7 n. Note the descriptive
imperfects ਪʌȠȞĲȠ and ʌȦȜİ૙Ĳ(Ƞ); this is the general situation into which
Aphrodite abruptly intrudes in 81.
Ƞੂ įૅ ਚȝĮ ȕȠȣı੿Ȟ ਪʌȠȞĲȠ: For the language and construction, cf. 73–4;
Il. 2.630 (etc.) Ĳ૵Ț įૅ ਚȝĮ … ȞોİȢ ਪʌȠȞĲȠ; 18.577 ȞȠȝોİȢ ਚȝૅ ਥıĲȚȤȩȦȞĲȠ
ȕȩİııȚȞ; Od. 15.397 ਚȝૅ ੢İııȚȞ … ਦʌȑıșȦ; Hes. Op. 406 ਸ਼ĲȚȢ țĮ੿ ȕȠȣı੿Ȟ
ਪʌȠȚĲȠ.
ȞȠȝȠઃȢ țȐĲĮ ʌȠȚȒİȞĲĮȢ: The adjective represents the goal of the ex-
pedition, which is to find the richest pasturage possible; cf. 54–5 n., 169
with n.
The enjambment of ʌȐȞĲİȢ stresses the contrast between ‘all (the oth-
er)’ herdsman, who are away from the farm for the day, and Anchises, who
is there alone for Aphrodite to discover.
Aphrodite arrives at the farmstead at 75, and then in 76 ‘discovers’
Anchises there. How she finds him is not specified, and ʌȦȜİ૙Ĳૅ ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿
਩ȞșĮ in 80 implicitly raises the question again, by noting that Anchises—
unlike Eumaeus in Odyssey 14 (cf. 75 n.)—is not simply sitting by the
front gate, but is wandering aimlessly around the establishment. By 81
(where see n.), however, the goddess is standing directly in front of An-
chises, and įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȞ țȚșĮȡȓȗȦȞ suggests that his whereabouts have been
given away by the ‘piercing’ sound of his lyre. For įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȞ (adverbial),
see 19 n. The word is focalized by Aphrodite, and brings her discreetly
back into the narrative after the explanatory digression in 76–9; cf. 81–3 n.
țȓșĮȡȚȢ (whence the verb țȚșĮȡȓȗȦ, forms of which appear * at hAp. 515;
hHerm. 423, 425, 433, 455, 475, 510) is a standard Homeric term for a
lyre; see 19 n.; Maas and Snyder (1989) 30–4; West (1992) 49–56. Why
Anchises has been left behind at the farm by the other men is not stated—
indeed, why the farm and the other herdsmen have been introduced into the
story at all, when Anchises’ encounter with Aphrodite might simply have
taken place on the mountainside, like Paris’ with Aphrodite, Athena, and
Hera (cf. 69 n.)—is unclear. But (again unlike Eumaeus; cf. above; 75 n.)
he seems to have no work to do, and is merely entertaining himself. Nor
does Anchises’ lyre play any further part in the story, to the extent that he
is never even said to set it down. Instead, his instrument and his skill at
playing it are further marks of his privileged, elite status: he is a hero (77),
and when heroes have nothing nothing else to occupy their time, they play
the lyre (esp. Il. 9.186–9 (Achilleus)).The detail also inevitably evokes the
story of the Judgment of Paris, who is routinely represented in artistic
sources as playing a lyre on the slopes of Mount Ida when Hermes arrives
with the three goddesses in tow (e.g. LIMC s. Paridis Iudicium #24, 29, 30,
34–6, 38–9; cf. Il. 3.54–5 (Hector reproaching Paris) Ƞ੟ț ਙȞ ĲȠȚ ȤȡĮȓıȝȘȚ
țȓșĮȡȚȢ ĲȐ Ĳİ į૵ȡૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ / ਸ਼ Ĳİ țȩȝȘ Ĳȩ Ĳİ İੇįȠȢ, ੖Ĳૅ ਥȞ țȠȞȓȘȚıȚ
ȝȚȖİȓȘȢ (‘Your lyre would do you no good, nor would Aphrodite’s gifts,
your hair, or your good looks, when you found yourself in the dust!’)).
81–83 In terms of logical and temporal structure, the verses are in reverse
order: Aphrodite appears before Anchises (81), having already altered her
appearance (82), motivated by a desire not to frighten him (83).
ıĲો įૅ Į੝ĲȠ૨ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ: Aphrodite drops temporarily out of the
narrative at 76; her absence is particularly apparent in the shift in the oth-
erwise identical description of Anchises, from accusative (as the object of
her discovery) in 76 to nominative (going independently about his busi-
ness, unaware of her presence) in 79. For her reemergence via the adjective
182 Commentary
įȚĮʌȡȪıȚȠȞ, see 80 n. But the abrupt return of the goddess as a character in

the story matches the suddenness with which she now appears in front of
Anchises, who has good reason to think himself alone (76–9). The location
of the encounter is vaguely specified as ‘at the farmstead’ in 76 (echoed in
79; cf. 69; ʌȦȜİ૙Ĳૅ ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿ ਩ȞșĮ in 80 offers no further help in this re-
gard), but is defined here along a different and, for the Hymn’s purposes,
more important axis: wherever Anchises and Aphrodite may be in regard to
the ‘well-made buildings’ the goddess reached at 75 and among which
Anchises is wandering in 79–80, they are now face-to-face, and what mat-
ters is what goes on between them.
ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: The reference to Aphrodite as ‘daughter of
Zeus’ at a crucial point in the action functions as a reminder that every-
thing that is happening is a result of his plan (45–53) and that, troublesome
though Aphrodite may be from time to time (36–40), she is formally under
his authority, including in matters touching on her sexuality; cf. 7–33 n.,
107, 191; Boedeker (1974) 36–7. In Hesiod, Aphrodite is not the child of
Zeus, but is produced from the foam surrounding Sky’s castrated genitals
(see h. 6 introductory n.), and the Hymn-poet here for the first time explic-
itly indicates his preference for the goddess’ Homeric genealogy.
ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ ȝȑȖİșȠȢ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ੒ȝȠȓȘ: The description (echoed
in 85) reverses the normal epic trope, in which a mortal woman is said by
way of praise to resemble a goddess (e.g. Od. 6.15–16 (Nausicaa) țȠȪȡȘ /
… ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ ĳȣ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ੒ȝȠȓȘ (‘a young woman who resembled
immortal goddesses in form and appearance’)), and thus cuts neatly in two
directions at once. As 83 shows, Aphrodite is supposed to have made her-
self not more attractive (contrast 61–5) but shorter (sc. in ȝȑȖİșȠȢ) and less
beautiful (sc. in İੇįȠȢ) than normal; cf. 173–5, where she re-assumes her
proper appearance before revealing her identity to Anchises. But the new
form the goddess has taken on, that of ‘a young woman who had never
known a man’, is also erotically appealing (cf. 14–15 n., 84–5 n.), so that
her appearance is simultaneously debased and attractive. For size, especial-
ly height, as a crucial index of physical attractiveness (a symptom of a
society in which chronic under-nutrition was the norm), e.g. Od. 5.215–19;
6.107–9, 229–30; 18.195; 23.156–7; cf. 264–8 n. Aphrodite’s clothing and
jewelry, assumed in anticipation of this encounter at 64–5 (where see n.),
can be assumed to remain as they were when she left her temple in Paphos;
cf. 85–90 (where the jewelry in particular plays an important part in inspir-
ing Anchises with lust), 162–5 (Anchises removes Aphrodite’s clothing
and jewelry before making love to her). The scent of the perfumed oil with
which she is covered (61–3 with nn.), on the other hand, is never alluded to
again, perhaps because it might reasonably have served Anchises as ad-
vance warning that he was dealing with an immortal, spoiling the story.
ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȚ ਕįȝȒĲȘȚ: The adjective, like its cognate ਕįȝȒȢ, is regularly

used elsewhere in early epic of animals that have not been broken for work
(Il. 10.293 = Od. 3.383; Il. 23.266, 655; Od. 4.637; MSS at hHerm. 103
(ਕțȝોĲİȢ Ilgen)), but also of girls who have not yet been ‘mastered’ (for
įȐȝȞȘȝȚ/įĮȝȐȗȦ in this sense, 2–3 n. on ਥįĮȝȐııĮĲȠ, 16–17 n.; e.g. Il.
18.432; Hes. Th. 453), sc. sexually by a man (133 with n.; Od. 6.109, 228;
Hes. fr. 59.4; hDem. 145). Cf. Bergren (1989) 10. Here the phrase likely
alludes to the description of Nausicaa as a ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ ਕįȝȒȢ at Od. 6.109,
228; cf. 92 n.
ȝȑȖİșȠȢ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ is a variation of the Homeric / İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ȝȑȖİșȩȢ Ĳİ
(85 with the second apparatus); cf. Od. 5.217 İੇįȠȢ … ȝȑȖİșȩȢ Ĳİ; Hes. Th.
619–20 țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ / țĮ੿ ȝȑȖİșȠȢ; hDem. 275* (perhaps modeled on this
passage); [Hes.] Sc. 5 İ੅įİ૘ Ĳİ ȝİȖȑșİȚ Ĳİ. The variant Ĳİ țĮ੿ (p) represents
an attempt to mend the meter by someone unaware that İੇįȠȢ properly
begins with digamma (e.g. Il. 24.376 įȑȝĮȢ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ਕȖȘĲȩȢ /).
ȝȒ ȝȚȞ ĲĮȡȕȒıİȚİȞ ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ anticipates, and thus both
prepares for and justifies Anchises’ reaction at 182, when Aphrodite finally
reveals herself to him in her full divine glory: ĲȐȡȕȘıȑȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੕ııİ
ʌĮȡĮțȜȚįઁȞ ਩ĲȡĮʌİȞ ਙȜȜȘȚ. Cf. 146 ੪Ȣ ਕȖȠȡİȪİȚȢ with n.; Richardson on
hDem. 188–90 § 3 (on amazement and terror as appropriate reactions to an
encounter with a deity); Smith (1981a) 45. Note the echo of ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ
ȞȠȒıĮȢ at 179, at the end of Aphrodite’s question as she wakes Anchises
up. ȝȚȞ is to be taken with both the participle (which requires a direct ob-
ject) and the optative main verb (which does not).
ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ is found in this sedes elsewhere in early epic
only at Il. 24.294 = 312 (Hecabe urges Priam to request an omen from
Zeus ensuring that he will be able to travel safely to Achilleus’ hut), a sce-
ne that also includes one of the three Homeric examples of the formula /
ıĲો įૅ … ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ (cf. 81; also at Il. 14.297 (Zeus prepares to address
the newly-beautified Hera, lust having overpowered him at the sight of her
in 14.294); cf. 54–5 n.).
84–85 The description in 82–3 of (A) Aphrodite’s altered ȝȑȖİșȠȢ țĮ੿
İੇįȠȢ, driven by her concern about (B) how Anchises might react (ȝȒ ȝȚȞ
ĲĮȡȕȒıİȚİȞ) to (C) the sight of her (ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ), sets up the
account of his actual reaction, which is presented in reverse order: when
(C´) Anchises sees Aphrodite (੒ȡȩȦȞ ਥĳȡȐȗİĲȠ), (B´) he responds not
with terror but with wonder (șĮȪȝĮȚȞİȞ) to (A´) her İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ȝȑȖİșȩȢ Ĳİ.
Cf. h. 6.18, where the male gods all express a desire to marry Aphrodite
when she is first introduced to them, İੇįȠȢ șĮȣȝȐȗȠȞĲİȢ ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ
ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ (‘amazed at the appearance of violet-crowned Aphrodite’).
੒ȡȩȦȞ: For the connection between the act of seeing and the onset of
਩ȡȠȢ (91 with n.), see 56–7 n.
184 Commentary
șĮȪȝĮȚȞİȞ: picked up in 90 șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ, where see n. Homer has

the future active participle șĮȣȝĮȞȑȠȞĲİȢ at Od. 8.108 metri gratia, but
elsewhere always uses forms of șĮȣȝȐȗȦ (often associated with and pre-
sented as a reaction to verbs meaning ‘see’ (e.g. Il. 24.631–2; Od. 8.459;
24.307; cf. hHerm. 414)) rather than șĮȣȝĮȓȞȦ. The expected form is thus
șĮȪȝĮȗİȞ (e.g. Il. 24.631; Od. 24.370; always in a different sedes), but
forms of șĮȣȝĮȓȞȦ also appear at hHerm. 407; ‘Anacr.’ PMG 501.11. Ei-
ther Ĭ’s șĮȪȝĮȚȞİȞ or p’s șȐȝȕĮȚȞİȞ (or both) might have stood in Ȍ, and
van Eck (1978) ad loc. (followed by Faulkner (2008) and Richardson
(2010)) argues that șȐȝȕĮȚȞİȞ (printed also by Càssola (1975)) is the lectio
difficilior. But Homer always uses șĮȝȕȑȦ (e.g. Il. 23.728 șȐȝȕȘıȐȞ Ĳİ*)
rather than șĮȝȕĮȓȞȦ, and the latter is in any case otherwise attested only
at Pi. O. 3.32 șȐȝȕĮȚȞİ (with the v.l. șĮȪȝĮȚȞİ) and may well be a ghost-
word produced via conflation with șȐȝȕȠȢ.
İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ȝȑȖİșȩȢ Ĳİ: i.e. the fact that she looks like a ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ
ਕįȝȒĲȘȢ (82), although she is simultaneously as beautiful as any goddess
(92–9)—a somewhat tangled image. Cf. 81–3 n.
țĮ੿ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮ adds a new element to the description of Aph-
rodite offered in 82, and is accordingly provided with an explanatory gloss
in 86 (cf. 87–90). For the goddess’ clothing, cf. 64 with n., 164 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ
ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮ*, 171. The digamma with which İ੆ȝĮĲĮ normally begins is
neglected only once in Homer (Od. 7.259), and Flach (followed by Allen)
accordingly deleted the second Ĳİ in the first half of the line. But this
leaves ȝȑȖİșȠȢ without a connective, and digamma is neglected on the
same word at 232. Cf. Smith (1979) 30–2.
86–90 The description of Aphrodite’s robe as ‘more brilliant than fire-
light’ in 86 is borrowed from Homer’s account of Hephaestus’ forging of
new arms for Achilleus at Il. 18.610, while the list of jewelry in 87 is
adapted from Hephaestus’ own account of the work he did for Thetis after
Hera expelled him from Olympus at Il. 18.401 (= 163, where see n.). The
implication is that everything Aphrodite is wearing is—as one might have
guessed in any case—of divine workmanship; cf. Il. 5.338 (Aphrodite’s
ʌȑʌȜȠȢ) ੖Ȟ Ƞੂ ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ țȐȝȠȞ Į੝ĲĮȓ (‘which the Graces themselves made
for her’); Cypr. fr. 4, pp. 46–7 Bernabé (a detailed description of the
ʌȑʌȜȠȢ the Graces and the Seasons made for Aphrodite and dyed with the
colors of all the spring flowers).
86 ʌȑʌȜȠȞ … Ȗ੹ȡ ਪİıĲȠ and ĳĮİȚȞȩĲİȡȠȞ ʌȣȡઁȢ Į੝ȖોȢ explain and expand
85 İ੆ȝĮĲĮ and ıȚȖĮȜȩİȞĲĮ, respectively. But despite the claim in 85 that
Aphrodite’s clothing captured Anchises’ attention and inspired his awe, the
narrator displays less interest in it than in her jewelry and its erotic effect
(below). For a similar balance (or imbalance), cf. h. 6.6–11, where the
goddess’ clothing is described simply as ਙȝȕȡȠĲĮ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ, while 4½ lines

are devoted to a detailed account of the jewelry the Seasons put on her.
ĳĮİȚȞȩĲİȡȠȞ ʌȣȡઁȢ Į੝ȖોȢ: At Il. 18.610, the phrase is applied to a
metal breastplate, and it must thus describe not the color of Aphrodite’s
robe but the brightness or intensity of that color, whatever it may be. Ho-
meric descriptions of ʌȑʌȜȠȚ generally stress their inherent quality, size, or
workmanship: Il. 5.734–5 = 8.385–6 ʌȑʌȜȠȞ … / ʌȠȚțȓȜȠȞ (‘an elaborately
worked ʌȑʌȜȠȢ’; Athena’s robe); 6.90–1 ʌȑʌȜȠȞ, ੖Ȣ Ƞੂ įȠțȑİȚ ȤĮȡȚȑıĲĮĲȠȢ
਱į੻ ȝȑȖȚıĲȠȢ / İੇȞĮȚ ਥȞ੿ ȝİȖȐȡȦȚ țĮȓ Ƞੂ ĳȓȜĲĮĲȠȢ Į੝ĲોȚ ~ 271–2 (‘a ʌȑʌȜȠȢ,
the one she considers the loveliest and largest in our house, the one she
likes best’; a dedication), 289–90 ʌȑʌȜȠȚ ʌĮȝʌȠȚțȓȜȠȚ, ਩ȡȖĮ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ /
ȈȚįȠȞȚ૵Ȟ (‘extraordinarily elaborate ʌȑʌȜȠȚ, produced by Sidonian wom-
en’; among Paris’ treasures); 24.229 ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮȢ … ʌȑʌȜȠȣȢ (‘remarkably
lovely ʌȑʌȜȠȚ’; a suppliant gift), 796 ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȚȢ ʌȑʌȜȠȚıȚ … ȝĮȜĮțȠ૙ıȚȞ
(‘soft ʌȑʌȜȠȚ, dyed purple’; among Hector’s funeral goods); Od. 7.96–7
ʌȑʌȜȠȚ / ȜİʌĲȠ੿ ਥȪȞȞȘĲȠȚ, … ਩ȡȖĮ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ (‘fine ʌȑʌȜȠȚ made of well-
spun yarn, produced by women’; among the furnishings in Alcinoos’ pal-
ace); 18.292 ȝȑȖĮȞ ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮ ʌȑʌȜȠȞ (‘a large, very beautiful ʌȑʌȜȠȢ’;
Antinoos’ gift to Penelope). Here, by contrast, the emphasis is on the daz-
zling effect on the viewer, who almost has no choice but to turn his eyes
elsewhere (= 87–90, where see n.). For Aphrodite’s ʌȑʌȜȠȢ ĳĮİȚȞȩȢ, cf. Il.
5.315, where the adjective again refers to the effect on on-lookers, as the
goddess shields her son from his enemies’ view (ਥțȐȜȣȥİȞ) in order to
rescue him; and note the passages collected at the end of 86–90 n.
87–90 The descriptions of Aphrodite’s individual items of jewelry (cf. 65)
all include adjectives, some purely objective (ਥʌȚȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ, ȤȡȪıİȚȠȚ), some
less so (ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ, ʌĮȝʌȠȓțȚȜȠȚ), others purely evaluative (ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑİȢ,
țĮȜȠȓ) and thus easily understood as focalized by the entranced (84) and
appreciative (91) Anchises. The gleam of the goddess’ jewelry is men-
tioned twice (picking up on the description of her robe in 85–6), as is its
workmanship. But its most important characteristic is how it serves to draw
the viewer’s attention to her neck and breasts, which are described with the
erotic adjective ਖʌĮȜȩȢ (cf. 14–15 n.). For the neck (visible) and breasts
(perceived only through the clothing) as crucial components of female
beauty, and of Aphrodite’s beauty in particular, cf. 181 with n.; Il. 3.396–8
(Helen recognizes the disguised Aphrodite; perhaps a model for this pas-
sage and almost certainly for 181 as well (cf. 143–4 n.)) țĮȓ ૧ૅ ੪Ȣ Ƞ੣Ȟ
ਥȞȩȘıİ șİ઼Ȣ ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮ įİȚȡȒȞ / ıĲȒșİȐ șૅ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ țĮ੿ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ
ȝĮȡȝĮȓȡȠȞĲĮ, șȐȝȕȘıİȞ (‘And when, then, she noticed the goddess’ re-
markably lovely neck, and her luscious breasts and flashing eyes, she was
astounded’); h. 6.10–11 (the Seasons dress Aphrodite before presenting her
to the gods) with n.; Hes. fr. 75.9–10 (Atalanta appears to her suitors)
186 Commentary
[ʌȞ]ȠȚ੽ ǽİĳȪȡȠȚȠ ȤȚĲ૵ȞĮ / [ … ʌİ]ȡ੿ ıĲȒșİııૅ ਖʌĮȜȠ૙ıȚ (‘a gust of the

West wind … her robe about her soft breasts’); and see 257 ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ n.;
Brown (1997) 33–4, 36 (on ‘Aphrodite rich in gold’ generally, and the
function of her jewelry in particular).
Precisely what ਪȜȚțİȢ (literally ‘twists’) and țȐȜȣțİȢ (literally ‘flower-
buds’) are, is unclear. The adjectives associated with the nouns merely
reaffirm the underlying images or metaphors rather than clarifying or ex-
panding on them: ‘twists’ are, unsurprisingly, ‘curved, bent about’ (con-
trast the Homeric original = 163, in which the adjective refers to a different
item of jewelry, about which it adds important information), while ‘flower-
buds’ are ‘vibrant with color’ (cf. Richardson on hDem. 8). But the gaze
implied in 88–90 moves down deliberately from Aphrodite’s neck to her
bosom (see below), and it is reasonable to assume that this is merely a
continuation of the trajectory it has already assumed, and that the ‘twists’
and ‘flower-buds’ are hair-ornaments (cf. Il. 17.52 ʌȜȠȤȝȠȓ șૅ, Ƞ੄ Ȥȡȣı૵Ț Ĳİ
țĮ੿ ਕȡȖȪȡȦȚ ਥıĳȒțȦȞĲȠ (‘and his locks, bound tight with gold and sil-
ver’)), earrings (cf. h. 6.9 ਙȞșİȝૅ with n.), or the like.
੖ȡȝȠȚ į(ਥ) țĲȜ: The pace of the description slows markedly as Aphro-
dite’s necklaces—and thus her throat (the last bit of flesh visible before her
robes begin) and her breasts—come into focus, and the implied gaze
(above) lingers on them. The Homeric original of 87 (Il. 18.401; see 86–90
n., and cf. 163) ends with a reference to necklaces (țĮ੿ ੖ȡȝȠȣȢ /), which
has been replaced in the Hymn by the adjective ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ (modifying
țȐȜȣțĮȢ). 88 thus retains a strong connection to its Iliadic intertext, alt-
hough the line itself is perhaps borrowed direct from the Cypria: cf. fr. 6,
p. 48 Bernabé (from Naevius; doubtless of Aphrodite as she appears to
Paris) collum marmoreum torques gemmata coronat.
੪Ȣ į੻ ıİȜȒȞȘ țĲȜ modifies and reverses the description of Hera’s
head-scarf (țȡȒįİȝȞȠȞ) at Il. 14.185 ȜİȣțઁȞ įૅ ਷Ȟ ਱ȑȜȚȠȢ ੮Ȣ (‘It was as
bright as the sun’). For the moon described as ‘shining, brilliant’ or the like
(sc. in contrast to the dark sky at night), cf. Il. 8.555; Od. 4.45 = 7.84; Hes.
Th. 19, 371; fr. 252; Il.parv. fr. 9, p. 78 Bernabé. The reference is again to
the quality rather than the color of the light; cf. 86 n. The light that shines
‘about [Aphrodite’s] soft breasts’ (ıĲȒșİıȚȞ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜȠ૙ıȚȞ) is properly
reflected from her necklaces, which hang about the goddess’ neck (ਕȝĳૅ
ਖʌĮȜોȚ įİȚȡોȚ) down over the front of her dress. But the jewelry itself now
recedes into the background (hence the impersonal ਥȜȐȝʌİĲȠ, for which cf.
Il. 22.319; Od. 9.143 Ƞ੝į੻ ʌȡȠ੝ĳĮȓȞİĲૅ ੁįȑıșĮȚ), as the attention of the
narrative—and of Anchises—focusses on the body to which it calls atten-
tion. Cf. hDem. 278–9 ĲોȜİ į੻ ĳȑȖȖȠȢ ਕʌઁ ȤȡȠઁȢ ਕșĮȞĮĲȠ૙Ƞ / ȜȐȝʌİ șİ઼Ȣ
(‘and light shone far from the goddess’ immortal skin’).
șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ picks up șĮȪȝĮȚȞİȞ in 84, after the extended descrip-

tion of what Anchises saw and wondered at, and is perhaps a specific allu-
sion to Od. 8.366 (of the Graces in Paphos dressing Aphrodite; cf. 58–68
n.) ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਪııĮȞ ਥʌȒȡĮĲĮ, șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ (‘and they dressed her in
lovely clothing, marvellous to behold’).
91–106 Anchises’ initial speech to the disguised Aphrodite calls out to be
read against Od. 6.149–85 (see also 242 ~ Od. 6.244 with n.), where Odys-
seus, having washed up the previous day on the island of Scheria, emerges
from beneath a pair of olive bushes to confront Nausicaa, who has come
down to the shore with her maids to do her washing. Odysseus has no idea
where he is (6.119–21), and initially considers the possibility that the
shrieks that have awoken him were produced by nymphs (6.122–5); he
therefore begins by addressing Nausicaa as at least potentially a goddess
(6.149–52), although he is soon referring to her unambiguously as a mortal
woman who may be able to offer him the practical help he needs to escape
his troubles (esp. 6.175–80). Anchises, by contrast, ignores the possibility
that his visitor may be human, and instead expands on the question of pre-
cisely which goddess or type of goddess she may be (93–9), and on how he
will honor her and what he would like in return (100–6). Anchises’ insist-
ence that the beautiful woman standing before him must be an immortal—
perhaps even Aphrodite herself (93)—is on the mark, and he correctly
forecasts that she will grant him a child and enormous personal renown
(103–4), while obliquely raising the question of whether he will live to
enjoy any of this (105–6). But his insistence that his visitor must be divine
sits uncomfortably with the narrator’s assertion in 91 that Anchises was
already inflamed with lust even before he began to speak (ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ
਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ; contrast hDem. 190 įȑȠȢ İੈȜİȞ, the proper reaction to the sight
of a goddess), so that his extravagant remarks—like Odysseus’—are per-
haps ultimately best understood as flattery of an in some ways quite con-
ventional sort (cf. 55, 77, 108 n., 109 with n. 153 with n., 200–1, 219, 279),
which nonetheless preserves the possibility that he may be speaking with
one of the local nymphs at least (97–9). But the fact that the hero’s motiva-
tions cannot be easily and definitively assessed also suggests that the poet
may not have thought them through completely, allowing him to have the
story both ways. See in general Podbielski (1971) 43–6; Smith (1981a) 46–
9; de Jong (1989) 15–16; Clay (1989) 174–5; García (2002) 1–41, esp. 22–
4 (on the hymnic theme of divine visits to mortals, the recognition or lack
of recognition that follows, and the consequences). Nausicaa never re-
sponds directly to Odysseus’ suggestion that she may be a goddess, and at
109 the Hymn-poet activates as a second intertext Od. 16.181–9, where the
frightened and astonished Telemachus guesses that the physically trans-
188 Commentary
formed stranger he has met in Eumaeus’ hut must be a god, only to be

assured that this is his long-absent father.
91 ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ: For the connection between the onset of ਩ȡȠȢ
and the act of seeing (84), see 56–7 n., and cf. 143–4 n.
91 is very similar to 144, where the speech-introduction formula ਩ʌȠȢ
Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİ, however, is of a standard Homeric type (see n. ad
loc. and the second apparatus), as ਩ʌȠȢ įȑ ȝȚȞ ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ is not. Il. 5.170
ıĲો į੻ ʌȡȩıșૅ Į੝ĲȠ૙Ƞ, ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳȑ ȝȚȞ ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ, on which the second half of
this line is modeled, introduces a speech by Anchises’ son Aeneas that
ultimately leads to him being wounded by Diomedes and rescued by Aph-
rodite. But the Hymn-poet most likely chose to recall the line primarily
because he took ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ in the Iliadic passage to mean not ‘he said in
response’ (as normally in Homer) but ‘he said (standing) face-to-face to
him’, taking the narrative here back to the moment at 81 where Aphrodite
appears abruptly in the cowyard, directly in front of Anchises (/ ıĲો įૅ
Į੝ĲȠ૨ ʌȡȠʌȐȡȠȚșİ; cf. Il. 5.170 / ıĲો į੻ ʌȡȩıșૅ Į੝ĲȠ૙Ƞ), the events de-
scribed at length in 84–90 having ‘actually’ taken place in a heartbeat. The
characters are thus to be imagined as looking directly at one another—an
extraordinarily bold gesture on the woman’s part in particular (cf. 93–4 n.,
155–6 n., 181–2 n..; Il. 17.166–7 (looking another man in the eye as a sign
of confidence)).
92 ȤĮ૙ȡİ: found at the beginning of prayers at Il. 10.462*; 23.19* = 179*;
Od. 14.358 ȤĮȓȡİĲૅ*; cf. 293* (the poet’s final address to the subject of the
Hymn) with n.; Furley–Bremer (2001) i.61–3; ii.5. But here the word, in
combination with the second half of the relative clause that follows, can be
simultaneously understood as a more prosaic ‘Welcome to my house!’ (~
e.g. ȤĮ૙ȡİ ĲȐįİ įȫȝĮșૅ ਥȜȘȜȣșȣ૙Į; for the implication that the cowyard is
to be conceived as Anchises’ home and not just as a place he is visiting for
a few days or the like, cf. 54–5 n.), so that the emphasis falls squarely on ਸ਼
ĲȚȢ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ (‘whichever of the blessed ones’—i.e. ‘of the Olympian
gods’—‘you may be’, an indirect question explored in more detail in 93–4,
cf. 95–9). For ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ, see 33–5 n.
ਙȞĮıı(Į): used to address a female deity also at Od. 3.380 (Nestor to
Athena; see 100–6 n.), and twice by Odysseus in his initial speech to Nau-
sicaa (Od. 6.149 (quoted in the first apparatus), 175*). Cf. the similar use
of ਙȞĮ/ਙȞĮȟ at e.g. Il. 3.351; 16.514, 523.
įȫȝĮșૅ ੂțȐȞİȚȢ: cf. įȫȝĮșૅ ੆țĮȞİ at Od. 7.3; 15.216.
93–99 Anchises’ catalogue of supposed possibilities for the identity of his
anonymous visitor consists of three categories, each of which occupies two
lines and is both a bit less grand and marginally more likely than the one
that precedes it: she may be (1) a specific Olympian goddess (93–4); (2)
one of the individually anonymous Graces (95–6), who are said to associ-
ate with the (Olympian) gods and are thus implicitly distinguished from
them, but who are also described as immortal, something that does not
need to be specified of Artemis, Leto, Aphrodite, Themis, and Athena; or
(3) one of the various types of nymphs (97, 99), anonymous both collec-
tively and individually, who are somehow divine but also mortal, even if
extremely long-lived (cf. 258–72), and whom one might not unreasonably
imagine encountering far outside the city.
93–94 The list of Olympian goddesses grows gradually more elaborate,
from two bare names (‘Artemis’ and ‘Leto’), to a single name adorned with
a simple epithet (‘golden Aphrodite’), to a pair of names adorned with two-
element epithets (‘well-born Themis’ and ‘gleaming-eyed Athena’). But it
also displays a neat chiastic structure, with a virgin goddess at each end (A:
Artemis, A´: Athena), two consorts of Zeus from the Titan generation be-
tween them (B: Leto, B´: Themis), and Aphrodite herself (C) at the center
of the catalogue.
ਡȡĲİȝȚȢ … ਱੻ ȤȡȣıȑȘ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: Of the individual Olympian god-
desses, attractive mortal women are conventionally compared either to
Artemis alone (Od. 4.122 (the poet describing Helen); 6.102–9 (the poet
describing Nausicaa), 150–2 (Odysseus’ best guess as to who Nausicaa
might be, if she is a goddess); both are entrancing but pointedly chaste
figures)), or to ‘Artemis or golden Aphrodite’ (Od. 17.37 = 19.54 (the poet
describing Penelope, whose chastity and sexual potential are alike central
to his story)). Artemis is a particularly good guess here, given that she
haunts the mountains (18 with n.).
ȤȡȣıȑȘ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: The epithet is conventional (cf. 1 ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ
ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ with n., 95–9 n.), as is the use of ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȢ to describe Athe-
na (cf. 8, and see the second apparatus). But the adjectives, along with the
non-traditional ਱ȣȖİȞȒȢ (see below), combine to paint a flattering if sug-
gestive picture of Anchises’ anonymous visitor: she is richly ornamented in
gold (cf. 89) and therefore both (objectively) marriageable and (subjective-
ly) attractive to him (cf. 82 n.); she is not a slave or a simple peasant-girl,
but from a good family, and thus deserves both his interest and his respect;
and her willingness to look him in the eye (cf. 91 with n.) hints at personal
possibilities between them (cf. 155–6 n.). ȤȡȣıȑȘ (with -ȑȘ in synizesis) is
Barnes’ correction of the paradosis Ȥȡȣıો. West on Hes. Th. 822 points out
that MSS routinely offer the contracted form of the adjective when it is
used of Aphrodite, but prefer the uncontracted form elsewhere; this seems
inadequate grounds for declining to emend, given the lack of metrical or
interpretative implications.
ĬȑȝȚȢ ਱ȣȖİȞȒȢ: A telling collocation of ideas, especially given the
non-traditional character of the epithet (see below, and contrast above on
190 Commentary
ȤȡȣıȑȘ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ and ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȢ ਝșȒȞȘ): ĬȑȝȚȢ (‘Right’) is ‘well-born’

not just because the parents of the Titaness by that name were Earth and
Sky (Hes. Th. 133–5), but because right and proper behavior is (allegedly)
defined and represented by individuals of ‘decent birth’. This is the first
attestation of the adjective or any of its cognates; subsequently at Sapph.
SLG 261a fr. 2 col. ii.16; Thgn. 184; and common in 5th-c. poetry and
prose.
95–97, 99 ʌȠȣ (‘perhaps’) marks this as the next step in an internal process
of consideration (verbalized, meaning that the speaker is effectively repre-
sented as ‘thinking aloud’), as Anchises moves on from the suggestion that
his visitor may be a major Olympian deity (92–4), to the marginally more
likely possibility that she is a Grace or a nymph. Cf. 107–42 n. įİ૨ȡૅ
ਵȜȣșİȢ (for which, see also 95–6 n.; * at Od. 4.810) accordingly resumes
ĲȐįİ įȫȝĮșૅ ੂțȐȞİȚȢ in 92 in abbreviated form.
For Aphrodite, on the one hand, and the nymphs and the Graces (all
described as the goddess’ handmaids), on the other, together on the slopes
of Mount Ida, cf. Cypr. fr. 5, pp. 47–8 Bernabé, esp. 4–5 ȞȪȝĳĮȚ țĮ੿
ȋȐȡȚĲİȢ, ਚȝĮ į੻ ȤȡȣıȑȘ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ, / țĮȜઁȞ ਕİȓįȠȣıĮȚ țĮĲૅ ੕ȡȠȢ
ʌȠȜȣʌȓįĮțȠȢ ૓ǿįȘȢ (‘nymphs and Graces, and golden Aphrodite along with
them, singing a beautiful song on the side of spring-filled Mount Ida’).
95–96 Į੆ Ĳİ șİȠ૙ıȚ / ʌ઼ıȚȞ ਦĲĮȚȡȓȗȠȣıȚ is, on one level, merely another
way of saying that the Olympian gods are universally graceful and attrac-
tive, and thus does not contradict the fact that the Graces, understood in a
slightly different way, are routinely presented as the attendants of Aphro-
dite in particular; cf. 61–3 with n.; Hes. Th. 64–5, 907–11 with West ad
locc.; LIMC iii.1.191–3 (‘They belong, like Eros, Nike, the Horai and the
Moirai, to those figures whose appellations give them the character of per-
sonifications but who have a significant existence in cult, together with a
marginal existence in mythology’). But within Anchises’ speech the rela-
tive clause also serves to stress the significance of įİ૨ȡૅ ਵȜȣșİȢ: the Grac-
es belong on Olympus, not in his cowyard. Cf. 97–9 n.
Ĳİ has a generalizing descriptive function, as again in 97, 245, 246; cf. 97–
9 n.
97, 99 ਵ ĲȚȢ ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ, Į੆ Ĳ(İ) țĲȜ: Nymphs are associated above all else
with water, and thus here with springs (ʌȘȖ੹Ȣ ʌȠĲĮȝ૵Ȟ; such nymphs are
properly ȞĮȚȐįİȢ (‘naiads’), cognate with ȞȐȦ, ‘flow, run with water’) and,
via a slight zeugma, with the attractive groves of trees (ਙȜıİĮ țĮȜȐ; cf.
264–8 n. for specific types of tree-nymphs) and meadows full of grass
(ʌȓıİĮ ʌȠȚȒİȞĲĮ) that springs produce, and that iconically crowd them
close within these verses. For nymphs generally, see 257–72 with nn.
(264–72 on their connection to sacred groves); Od. 6.123–4 with Hains-

worth ad loc.; Hes. Th. 130 with West ad loc.; Gantz (1993) 139–42; Lar-
son (2001), esp. 8–11, 78–84.
ʌȓıİĮ is a correction by the L-scribe (modestly improved by Ruhnken)
to match the model at Il. 20.9 (cf. Od. 6.124). The paradosis ȕȒıİĮ (a non-
word, but cf. ȕોııĮ, ‘glen’) represents an aural rather than a visual error.
For Ĳ(İ), cf. 95 with n.
Between 97 and 99, the MSS offer an additional line (98; see the third
apparatus), modeled on 258 Į੄ Ĳȩįİ ȞĮȚİĲȐȠȣıȚȞ ੕ȡȠȢ ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİ ~
285 Į੄ Ĳȩįİ ȞĮȚİĲȐȠȣıȚȞ țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ (both of the nymphs), that ap-
pears to be an ancient variant for 97 (thus Ruhnken, followed by West
(2003) and Faulkner (2008)) and that serves to make Anchises’ final guess
as to his visitor’s identity more specific: she may be not just one of the
nymphs generally, but one of those who haunt the area around Troy in
particular. Both 97 and 98 might be retained (thus most recently Richard-
son (2010)). But Ȟȣȝĳ૵Ȟ is clumsy after ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ in the preceding verse
(ਕȝȕȡȩĲȦȚ … / ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȦȚ in 62–3 is different, since in that case two epic
exemplars are being merged, as they are not here), although modern aes-
thetic judgments admittedly count for little in such cases; țĮȜȩȞ has no
function except as a bit of unnecessary local boosterism; and it seems best
to expel the verse, which was perhaps produced originally when 97 was
lost via homoioteleuton after 96 in a copy of the text. That 97 is omitted in
a is most likely a simple mechanical error, given the presence of ਵ at the
beginning of both 97 and 98. But this might instead be taken as evidence
that the two lines were marked as alternatives in either ș or Ȍ, and that a
chose (badly) between them; cf. p. 000, n. 82, on the possibility that M
omitted one verse or the other; and 136 n., 274–5 for more obvious cases
of interpolation, lending support to the notion that ancient editorial inter-
vention in the text might be detected here as well. It is in any case far more
likely that a herdsman out in the wilderness might meet a nymph than that
he might unexpectedly happen upon one of the Graces; cf. 95–6 n.
100–106 Regardless of whether this speech is sincere (see 91–106), it is
structured in the standard prayer-form dabo ut des; cf. Od. 3.380–4 (Nestor
to Athena, who has just vanished abruptly from his presence; Od. 3.382–4
= Il. 10.292–4) ਕȜȜȐ, ਙȞĮııૅ, ੆ȜȘșȚ, įȓįȦșȚ įȑ ȝȠȚ țȜȑȠȢ ਥıșȜȩȞ, / Į੝Ĳ૵Ț
țĮ੿ ʌĮȓįİııȚ țĮ੿ ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ ʌĮȡĮțȠȓĲȚā / ıȠ੿ įૅ Į੣ ਥȖઅ ૧ȑȗȦ ȕȠ૨Ȟ ਷ȞȚȞ
İ੝ȡȣȝȑĲȦʌȠȞ / ਕįȝȒĲȘȞ, ਴Ȟ Ƞ੡ ʌȦ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȗȣȖઁȞ ਵȖĮȖİȞ ਕȞȒȡā / ĲȒȞ ĲȠȚ ਥȖઅ
૧ȑȗȦ ȤȡȣıઁȞ țȑȡĮıȚȞ ʌİȡȚȤİȪĮȢ (‘But show mercy, queen, and grant me a
fine reputation, for me, my children, and my wife. I in return will sacrifice
to you a yearling cow with a wide forehead, one that is unbroken, which no
one ever led beneath a yoke’); 13.358–60 (Odysseus to the Ithacan
nymphs; quoted in 102–6 n.). That a god—or even a nymph—will treat
192 Commentary
one well cannot be taken for granted (cf. 185–9, and note Nestor’s ੆ȜȘșȚ at
the very beginning of his prayer, as also in Telemachus’ address to the
transformed stranger at Od. 16.184–5 ਕȜȜૅ ੆ȜȘșૅ, ੆ȞĮ ĲȠȚ țİȤĮȡȚıȝȑȞĮ
įȫȠȝİȞ ੂȡȐ / ਱į੻ ȤȡȪıİĮ į૵ȡĮ, ĲİĲȣȖȝȑȞĮā ĳİȓįİȠ įૅ ਲȝȑȦȞ (‘But show
mercy, so that we can give you offerings you will appreciate and presents
of worked gold; spare us!’)). The suppliant must accordingly work to make
what he offers in return for a benevolent attitude on the deity’s part as
tempting as possible, hence Nestor’s specification that the bull to be sacri-
ficed to Athena will never have been put to the plow, will have its horns
gilded, etc., and Telemachus’ insistence that the gold objects he will offer
will be ‘(elaborately) worked’. Anchises for his part promises that the new
altar he proposes setting up will be located in a prominent spot, bringing
the maximum honor to the deity, and will receive rich sacrifices on a con-
stant basis. Unlike Nestor, however, Anchises promises not a single spec-
tacular offering but a new cult, which he will maintain himself. His offer of
fine sacrifices in perpetuity is thus implicated in what he requests from his
visitor in the verses that follow. Only if he grows wealthy and lives to be
an old man, will he be in a position to make the sort of offerings the god-
dess would like to receive for as long as she would, presumably, like to
receive them; and only if she grants him children, will her new cult contin-
ue after its mortal founder’s death. So too Anchises’ request for personal
distinction (matching his proposal to locate the altar in a conspicuous spot)
will serve the goddess’ interests as much as his own, since the more prom-
inent he is among his people, the more prominent the deity he worships
will become as well.
100–101 The grammatically unnecessary—and thus emphatic—use of ਥȖȫ
(balanced by ıȪ in 102) makes it clear from the first that Anchises’ offer
will be matched by a request for something in return from his visitor.
A ıțȠʌȚȒ (cognate with ıțȑʌĲȠȝĮȚ) is properly a ‘look-out spot’, i.e.
an elevated place from which one can see a long distance (e.g. Od. 10.146–
50). But the gloss ʌİȡȚĳĮȚȞȠȝȑȞȦȚ ਥȞ੿ ȤȫȡȦȚ (adapted from the Homeric
ʌİȡȚıțȑʌĲȦȚ ਥȞ੿ ȤȫȡȦȚ (Od. 1.426; 10.211, 253; 14.6), in which the second
element in the adjective comes, however, from ıțȑʌȦ/ıțİʌȐȦ, ‘cover,
shelter’; for the hiatus, also e.g. Il. 3.344 įȚĮȝİĲȡȘĲȦȚ ਥȞ੿ ȤȫȡȦȚ /; 5.386
țȡĮĲİȡȦȚ ਥȞ੿ įȑıȝȦȚ /) that follows effectively reverses the significance of
the word: the point of placing the goddess’ altar on a mountain- or hilltop
is not that she and her worshippers will have a fine view from there, but
that everyone in the area will be able to see what is going on in the place,
bringing her the maximum amount of attention and honor. (Cf. Demeter’s
cognate request at hDem. 270–2 for a temple and altar ਥʌ੿ ʌȡȠȪȤȠȞĲȚ
țȠȜȦȞ૵Ț (‘on a prominent hill’).) The adjective țĮȜȐ, used to describe the
offerings the goddess will receive in her new cult-spot, must accordingly
be understood as focalized not so much by the goddess (‘the sort of sacri-

fices that will appeal to you’) as by the same imaginary set of on-lookers
(‘the sort of sacrifices that will impress those who watch your new cult
being carried out’). The ıțȠʌȚȒ itself will be the temenos (‘sacred pre-
cinct’), within which the ȕȦȝȩȢ (‘altar’) will be located. Together the two
elements are sufficient to define a sacred spot capable of supporting cult
and sacrifice, a temple for the god’s personal use being a fine but unneces-
sary elaboration; cf. 58–9 with n.
ȕȦȝઁȞ ʌȠȚȒıȦ: For the language, cf. hDem. 298 ʌȠȚોıĮȚ țĮ੿ ȕȦȝȩȞ.
102–106 For Anchises’ request, cf. Il. 6.476–7 ((Hector prays to Zeus and
the other gods on Astyanax’ behalf; probably the model for 103) įȩĲİ į੽
țĮ੿ ĲȩȞįİ ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ / ʌĮ૙įૅ ਥȝȩȞ, ੪Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥȖȫ ʌİȡ, ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑĮ
ȉȡȫİııȚȞ (‘grant in fact that my child here be distinguished among the
Trojans, just as I am’); Od. 3.380–1 (quoted in 100–6 n.); 13.358–60
(Odysseus to the Ithacan nymphs) ਕĲ੹ȡ țĮ੿ į૵ȡĮ įȚįȫıȠȝİȞ, ੪Ȣ Ĳઁ
ʌȐȡȠȢ ʌİȡ, / Į੅ țİȞ ਥ઼Ț ʌȡȩĳȡȦȞ ȝİ ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਕȖİȜİȓȘ / Į੝ĲȩȞ
Ĳİ ȗȫİȚȞ țĮȓ ȝȠȚ ĳȓȜȠȞ ȣੂઁȞ ਕȑȟȘȚ (‘But I will offer you gifts, as I did be-
fore, if the spoil-driving daughter of Zeus earnestly allows me myself to
survive, and allows my beloved son to grow up’). But unlike Hector, Nes-
tor, and Odysseus, Anchises is not yet a distinguished person and has no
child, and he therefore asks to get honor and eventually a family rather
than to have his existing blessings confirmed, augmented, or extended to
the next generation. Formally, there are two parts to Anchises’ request, the
second considerably more complex than the first: (1) that he may be (i.e.
become) a distinguished member of Trojan society (103); and (2) that in
the future (İੁıȩʌȚıȦ) he may (a) have many healthy children and (b) lead a
long and prosperous life in his native land (104–6). (1) might easily be
taken as a wish for the present: for the moment, Anchises will settle for
renown, whereas a family, wealth, and a full share of years can—and in-
deed in one sense must—come afterward. But (2) is at least as well con-
ceived as lending specific content to the general aspiration articulated in
(1), since the most obvious way for a man to become ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȒȢ is by
gradually accumulating vigorous offspring and wealth, and by surviving
long enough to be regarded as a distinguished senior member of his socie-
ty. The expression of the latter hope sets up Anchises’ horror in 187–90,
when he realizes that his adventure with Aphrodite may easily deprive him
of all of this.
İ੡ĳȡȠȞĮ șȣȝઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ: sc. in consideration of the favors described in
the preceding two-and-a-half verses, thus explicitly marking the logical
connection between Anchises’ offer of an altar and sacrifice, and the re-
quests that follow.
194 Commentary
İ੡ĳȡȠȞĮ: first attested here in the sense ‘well-disposed, favorable’ (ra-

ther than ‘cheerful’ or ‘bringing cheer’); subsequently at Pi. O. 4.12–13
șİઁȢ İ੡ĳȡȦȞ / İ੅Ș.
įȩȢ ȝİ ȝİĲ੹ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑૅ ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮ: cf. Hector’s re-
quest for Astyanax at Il. 6.476–7 (quoted above)—which was not granted,
implicitly creating a stark contrast with what Anchises asks for himself and
his descendants (Podbielski (1971) 44–5). įȩȢ is common in prayers (e.g.
Il. 3.322, 351; 7.203; 10.281; 16.524; 17.646; 24.309; Od. 3.60; 6.327;
9.530; h. 10.5).
İੁıȩʌȚıȦ is attested nowhere else in early epic, although cf. Od.
18.122 ਩Ȣ ʌİȡ ੑʌȓııȦ; ਥȟȠʌȓıȦ at Hes. Th. 182, 500; Op. 88; hHerm. 211.
Subsequently at Sol. fr. 27.10 țĮ੿ ʌĮȓįȦȞ ȗȘĲİ૙Ȟ İੁıȠʌȓıȦ ȖİȞİȒȞ (‘and to
seek a generation of children thereafter’); S. Ph. 1104.
șĮȜİȡઁȞ ȖȩȞȠȞ: sc. İੇȞĮȚ, ‘that my children be șĮȜİȡȠȓ’. For the adjec-
tive in the sense ‘vigorous’ (commonly of young people) and thus ‘full of
reproductive energy, fertile’, cf. 189 ȕȚȠșȐȜȝȚȠȢ with n.; Od. 6.66 șĮȜİȡઁȞ
ȖȐȝȠȞ (‘a șĮȜİȡȩȢ marriage’); Hes. Th. 138 șĮȜİȡઁȞ … ĲȠțોĮ (‘his
șĮȜİȡȩȢ parent’); fr. 25.35 șĮȜİȡઁȞ ȜȑȤȠȢ (‘a șĮȜİȡȩȢ bed’); LfgrE s.v. B
3–4 (where the latter sense of the word is unnecessarily distinguished from
the former). Anchises knows nothing of Aeneas. But the audience of the
Hymn will inevitably think of him at this point (cf. 50–2 n.), and thus per-
haps of the fact that he—unlike his father—was unable to enjoy a long,
settled, prosperous life in his native land.
The significance of įȘȡઁȞ ਩ȣ ȗȫİȚȞ is gradually unpacked, in reverse
order, in the remainder of 105–6: ȗȫİȚȞ is more expressively put ੒ȡ઼Ȟ
ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ (for the image, cf. 256 with n., 272); ਩ȣ is defined as mean-
ing ੕ȜȕȚȠȞ ਥȞ ȜĮȠ૙Ȣ (virtually ‘richer than my peers’, but with the adjec-
tive capturing the judgment of the other Trojans, ‘Anchises is ੕ȜȕȚȠȢ’); and
įȘȡȩȞ is glossed with the once again far more expressive ȖȒȡĮȠȢ Ƞ੝įઁȞ
ੂțȑıșĮȚ.
107–142 Aphrodite’s response to Anchises’ speech really belongs after 96
(or 99), and were this a real conversation rather than a literary representa-
tion of one, she would have interrupted him long ago. Her own remarks,
meanwhile, fall into a series of distinct sections that might easily, in a more
naturalistic style, have been presented as answers to questions from her
interlocutor: 112–13 ‘If you are not a god, who is your father?’; 113–16 ‘If
you are from Phrygia, how is that you speak my language?’; 117–25 ‘What
are you doing here, dressed so beautifully?’; 126–7 ‘Why did Hermes
bring you to my house in particular?’; 128–9 ‘If Hermes brought you here,
where is he?’; 130–6 ‘How do you want me to respond to your arrival?’;
137–42 ‘If my parents agree that we should be married, what further ar-
rangements should I make?’ See in general Podbielski (1971) 46–53; Lenz
(1975) 125–6; Smith (1981a) 49–55; de Jong (1989) 20–1; Clay (1989)
175–8; Bergren (1989) 18–20.
107–108 are repeated almost word-for-word in 191–2.
ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: see 81*–3 n.
ਝȖȤȓıȘ: Anchises has no idea who his visitor is, and the fact that she
knows his name must accordingly be explained in the course of her story
(126–8 with nn.).
țȪįȚıĲİ ȤĮȝĮȚȖİȞȑȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ: If Anchises’ initial speech to Aph-
rodite is flattering and deceptive (91–106 n.), her response is as well, since
he is scarcely the ‘most famous person born on the earth’; cf. 103 with n.,
132 n., 192*. ȤĮȝĮȚȖİȞȑȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ serves to set up the question of Aph-
rodite’s supposed mortal ancestry in 109–10, and is thus better than its
Homeric metrical equivalent țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (3*). But as Richard-
son on hDem. 113 observes, the formula is in addition elsewhere ‘used of
men in relation to the superior (and destructive) powers of the gods, nature,
etc.’, lending a quiet, chilling irony in the disguised Aphrodite’s choice of
phrase—not for Anchises, but for the external audience listening to or
reading the poem.
109–110 109 is a slightly reworked version of Od. 16.187, where Odysseus
assures Telemachus that he is not a god but his father; cf. 91–106 n., 100–6
n.; but in this case the reassurance is misleading. Like Nausicaa at Od.
6.196–7, Aphrodite gives her father’s name but not her own (although the
Phaeacian princess does eventually let her own name slip in the teasingly
flirtatious speech she puts in the mouth of one of the local boys at Od.
6.276–84).
Ĳȓ ȝૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚȞ ਥȓıțİȚȢ; is to be understood as an interjection, and
the construction of Ƞ੡ ĲȓȢ ĲȠȚ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚ continues in 110 ਕȜȜ੹ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȒ
Ȗİ, as also in the Homeric model, where the verb is, however, repeated
(Od. 16.188 ਕȜȜ੹ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ĲİȩȢ İੁȝȚ). For the aggressively maintained dis-
tinction between gods and human beings ‘subject to death’ in the Hymn,
see 33–5 n., 45–6 n., and cf. on ȖȣȞ੽ įȑ ȝİ țĲȜ. below.
van Eck (1978) 46 defends the paradosis țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȒ Ĳİ by reference to
the observation of Denniston (1954) 513, that the combination of Ĳİ and įȑ
generally expresses ‘contrast … added to the original idea of addition’, but
then concedes that this is irrelevant, since ‘here įȑ has explanatory force’.
Gemoll’s țĮĲĮșȞȘĲȒ Ȗİ, with the particle serving to emphasize the contrast
with șİȩȢ in 109, is the simplest and most conservative of emendations (ī
misread as ȉ, as again in 116, 145; cf. 245), and clarifies the expression at
an exceedingly low palaeographic price.
ȖȣȞ੽ įȑ ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ adapts and reverses Achilleus’ description
of his own ancestry at Il. 21.109 șİ੹ įȑ ȝİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ ȝȒĲȘȡ* (‘the mother
196 Commentary
who gave birth to me was a goddess’; cf. Il. 1.280 șİ੹ įȑ ıİ ȖİȓȞĮĲȠ
ȝȒĲȘȡ* (‘the mother who gave birth to you was a goddess’; Nestor to
Achilleus)), just before he kills Hector, implicitly tying the story of An-
chises (and Aeneas) to the larger Troy-saga, and to the sharp contrast be-
tween mortals and immortals Aphrodite has just drawn, while pointedly
evoking one of the most significant narrative moments in the Iliad; cf.
111–12 n., 126–9 n. Otreus’ daughter never gives her mother’s name (Nau-
sicaa is similarly discreet at Od. 6.305, 310–11, while naming Alcinous
again at 6.299, 302), but does apply emotionally-colored adjectives to her
(115 with n., 138 with n.; note also 134 (of Anchises’ mother)), whereas
she describes her father in terms of his reputation and political influence
(111–12); cf. 42–3 n., 139; Hes. Th. 932 ʌĮȡ੹ ȝȘĲȡ੿ ĳȓȜȘȚ țĮ੿ ʌĮĲȡ੿ ਙȞĮțĲȚ
(‘by the side of his beloved mother and his father the king’).
110–111 are repeated almost word-for-word in Anchises’ response at 145–
6, where see n.
111–112 Otreus is borrowed from Il. 3.184–9 (the Teichoskopia; cf. 143–4
n.), where Priam compares the size of the Achaean forces favorably to the
ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ਕȞȑȡĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ (cf. 137 with n.), / ȜĮȠઃȢ ૅȅĲȡોȠȢ țĮ੿
ȂȣȖįȩȞȠȢ ਕȞĲȚșȑȠȚȠ (‘Phrygians with their rapid steeds, the people of
Otreus and godlike Mygdon’), and tells Helen how he fought as a Phrygian
ally against the Amazons. The incident is most easily understood as a
youthful adventure (cf. Kirk ad loc.: ‘Priam’s Phrygian reference is very
much in the style of Nestor’s reminiscences’), putting Otreus (mentioned
nowhere else outside the Hymn except perhaps at [Apollod.] Bib. iii.12.3) a
generation or so before the Trojan War and thus contemporary with An-
chises. For the terms in which Aphrodite describes him, see 109–10 n.
ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȢ is a Homeric hapax at Il. 22.51 (Priam cries out to Hec-
tor from the walls of Troy, trying to convince him to run from Achilleus),
and was noteworthy enough to be reused also at hHerm. 59
(ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȞ*). The unique adjective İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲȠȚȠ in turn articulates a
fundamental narrative element that binds together not just the Teichoskopia
(above) and Priam’s appearance in Iliad 21, but also the death of Hector at
Achilleus’ hands before his father’s eyes later in the Book (109–10 n.).
Aphrodite’s lying tale—which leads directly to the birth of Aeneas, who
escaped the destruction of Troy—thus engages pointedly with the story of
the ruin of Priam and his branch of the royal family; and this theme of
intergenerational loss, but also of the possibility for rescue, redemption,
and renewal, is reinforced via the Odyssean references that frame these
verses, to the reunion of Odysseus and his son Telemachus (109), on the
one hand, and the kidnapping of Eumaeus (112, 114–15), on the other. Cf.
126–9 n., 176–80 n., 185–6 n., 196–9 n.
At Od. 15.403, from which İ੅ ʌȠȣ ਕțȠȪİȚȢ is borrowed, the interjection

appears self-deprecating (‘you might have heard of it’): Eumaeus knows
that his native island is small and far away, and he accordingly goes on to
offer his guest a detailed—if idealized—description of the place (Od.
15.404–14). But after the assertive ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȢ, the phrase here inevitably
takes on a more confident tone (‘I imagine you’ve heard of him’) con-
sistent with the air of self-promotion that pervades Aphrodite’s speech
(esp. 114–15, 119–20, 130, 136, 139–40). At the same time, the words
serve to mark the adjective that precedes them, and so the intertextual
character of the entire passage and its implications, as deserving particular
attention from the Hymn’s audience (virtually ‘—are you listening?—, —
are you paying attention?—’).
İ੝ĲİȚȤȒĲȠȚȠ is a unique variant of the common Homeric adjective
İ੝ĲİȓȤİȠȢ (e.g. Il. 1.129; 2.113; 16.57; always of Troy). Here the word is
implicitly boastful (cf. above): not only is Otreus king of all Phrygia
(ʌȐıȘȢ ĭȡȣȖȓȘȢ … ਕȞȐııİȚ; contrast Il. 3.186 (quoted above), where he
shares his throne somehow with Mygdon, who is moreover alone awarded
the honorary epithet ‘godlike’), but the place is full of well-fortified cities.
113–116 A strikingly self-conscious, ‘naturalizing’ narrative moment,
which calls attention to its own character as back-story by means of the
ȖȐȡ in 114, and to its lack of organic connection to what precedes and
follows it through the near-repetition of 113 in 116. Homer is well aware
that different groups of people speak different languages (Il. 2.803–4;
4.436–8; Od. 19.175–7)—as almost anyone living in the ancient Mediter-
ranean would have been—but his characters all speak (Greek) freely to one
another nonetheless. The Hymn-poet, on the other hand, as if anticipating
objections to the plausibility of key elements in his story, pauses to let
Aphrodite offer an explanation of how a young Phrygian girl might have
come to speak ‘Trojan’; cf. 76–9, which has a similar ‘naturalizing’ func-
tion and is marked by a similar verbal repetition (76 ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ
ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȞ ȠੇȠȞ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ / ~ 79 ıĲĮșȝȠ૙ıȚ ȜİȜİȚȝȝȑȞȠȢ ȠੇȠȢ ਕʌૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ
/). Despite all that, the logical link between the abbreviated autobiography
Aphrodite offers Anchises and what she wants to communicate to him
about her current linguistic abilities remains oblique, as routinely in real
human speech. She tells him that she had a Trojan nurse (114–15 with n.)
and that she accordingly (੮Ȣ) knows his language as well as her own (113
~ 116). But she never says explicitly that she learned to speak ‘Trojan’
from her nurse, and the connection between her past and present situations
must be drawn by the listener, as įȒ ĲȠȚ (116 with n.) serves to indicate.
113 Wolf’s ‫ۃ‬Ĳİ‫ ۄ‬neatly eliminates hiatus between țĮ੿ and ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ.
198 Commentary
Elsewhere in early epic, ıȐĳĮ ȠੇįĮ (literally ‘I know clearly’) always

follows a word that ends with a diphthong (Il. 20.201, 432; Od. 17.307,
373), which the initial consonant in the adverb serves to keep long, and İ੣
ȠੇįĮ (literally ‘I know well’) would thus not only do just as well here met-
rically, but is the expected formula (cf. 116*; e.g. Od. 14.365 ਥȖઅ įૅ ਥઃ
ȠੇįĮ; hHerm. 467 ʌȐȞĲૅ İ੤ ȠੇįĮȢ /). But ıȐĳĮ ȠੇįĮ also stresses performa-
tive competence (‘I can comprehend and express myself in’, which is the
vital point here), whereas İ੣ ȠੇįĮ describes knowledge of a richer and
more holistic sort (‘I am well acquainted with, fully understand’), like that
a child might get from years spent by the side of a beloved nurse (cf. 114–
15), suggesting that this is more than simple ‘sub-epic’ variatio.
114–115 Aphrodite’s claim to have learned Anchises’ language from her
ȉȡȦȚ੹Ȣ … ĲȡȠĳȩȢ would seem to raise the further question of how a
Trojan woman came to work in that capacity in the house of a Phrygian
king. The obvious possibilities are that she was (1) a war-captive—
although this might in turn raise the question of how the Trojans and the
Phrygians, allies at Il. 3.184–9 (see 111–12 n.), came to fight one another;
(2) a slave, like Odysseus’ and Telemachus’ old nurse Eurycleia (Od.
1.429–35); or (3) a wanderer, and thus most likely someone who narrowly
escaped being enslaved and was stranded far from home, like Demophon’s
nurse Demeter/Deo in her own lying tale at hDem. 123–34 (modeled at
least in part on Od. 14.339–59). But the fact that such conventional epic
explanations present themselves means that Aphrodite—who is fabricating
all of this in any case—and the Hymn-poet are free not to take the matter
up, and Anchises for his part shows no interest in it. Ȍ’s ȉȡȦȩȢ represents
clumsy assimilation to what might at first glance appear to be the mascu-
line gender of ĲȡȠĳȩȢ.
In Homer, what is here the locative dative ȝİȖȐȡȦȚ (‘in the house’) al-
ways takes the preposition ਥȞ/ਥȞȓ; cf. 14 ਥȞ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ, 231 ਥȞ੿ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ.
Here the word adds a note of conventional social piety to Aphrodite’s au-
tobiography: at least as she tells the story, she has never been out of the
house before (cf. 119–20 n.). But it has an erotic undertone as well; cf. 14–
15 n., 133 n.
ĲȡȑĳİȞ ਱į੻ … / … ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİ: The verbs are routinely combined else-
where in early epic, but always within a single verse (Il. 14.303; 16.191;
Od. 19.354; Hes. Th. 480; fr. 165.6), and the expansion has had an unfor-
tunate effect on the clarity of expression (see below). The etymology of
ਕĲȚĲȐȜȜȦ, and thus precisely how it differs in sense from ĲȡȑĳȦ, is ob-
scure, although the former verb appears to focus on the effort and loving
concern invested in its object (‘care for’), while the latter emphasizes the
physical result (‘raise, bring up’); cf. below, 231–2 with n.; Od. 18.323
ʌĮ૙įĮ į੻ ੬Ȣ ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİ, įȓįȠȣ įૅ ਙȡૅ ਕșȪȡȝĮĲĮ șȣȝ૵Ț (‘She cared for me
like her child, and gave me toys to keep me happy’). Note the figura ety-
mologica ĲȡȠĳઁȢ ĲȡȑĳİȞ.
įȚȐʌȡȠ (‘from one end to the other’, i.e. here ‘from beginning to end,
constantly’; an unparalleled usage) sits awkwardly with ıȝȚțȡ੽Ȟ ʌĮ૙į(Į),
since although Aphrodite was (supposedly) once a little girl, she was not
one throughout the time her nurse was taking care of her. ıȝȚțȡ੽Ȟ ʌĮ૙į(Į)
is therefore best understood as the object of ਦȜȠ૨ıĮ, while ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİ must
take ȝİ again. Aphrodite’s account of her upbringing proceeds in any case
in reverse chronological order: she (1) was raised—i.e. she reached the age
she is now—by a nurse who (2) cared for her constantly for years after (3)
getting her as a little girl from her mother.
ĳȓȜȘȢ ʌĮȡ੹ ȝȘĲȡȩȢ is another bit of conventional social piety: Aphro-
dite’s mother is ‘dear’ to her even if she was raised by her nurse.
116 resumes 113, but without reference to Aphrodite’s ability to speak
Phrygian (contrast 113 ȖȜ૵ııĮȞ … țĮ੿ ਲȝİĲȑȡȘȞ ıȐĳĮ ȠੇįĮ), which
makes no difference to Anchises; the key point is that his visitor is fluent in
‘Trojan’, allowing them to have this conversation. Put another way, the
difference between the two verses anticipates the action in the story that
follows, as Aphrodite is snatched away from her family and native land,
and brought to Mount Ida and Anchises.
įȒ lends emphasis to ੬Ȣ … ȖȜ૵ııȐȞ Ȗİ țĲȜ., and thus represents Aph-
rodite’s assertion that this conclusion is based on the information offered in
114–15 (almost ‘—I assure you that this is the case—’), while ĲȠȚ nonethe-
less places the responsibility for identifying the specific logical connection
between the facts and their consequences squarely on Anchises and the
Hymn’s audience.
İ੣ ȠੇįĮ: see 113 n.; and cf. hHerm. 467 İ੣ ȠੇįĮȢ* (also respecting di-
gamma).
117–120 Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ: returning to the main point after the explanatory digres-
sion in 113–16: If Aphrodite is the Phrygian king Otreus’ daughter (112–
13), how did she get to Anchises’ hut on the slopes of Mount Ida, and what
is her purpose in visiting him there?
ਕȞȒȡʌĮȟİ: The verb is used routinely in early epic to mean ‘snatch,
kidnap’ (e.g. Il. 9.564; Od. 4.515; hDem. 414; cf. LfgrE s. ਖȡʌȐȗȦ B 2)
rather than ‘snatch up (into the sky)’. 125 (where see n.) suggests that the
latter is nonetheless the sense intended here, as again in 208; the more
significant point is that where Aphrodite is taken to is ignored in 117–20,
which concentrate instead on where she was taken from; cf. 121 n. The
conventional epic explanation of Hermes’ behavior would be that he
snatched up Otreus’ daughter in order to rape her in an isolated spot (cf.
203 with n.), after which one could expect him to abandon her, allowing
200 Commentary
her to find her way eventually to Anchises’ door. Indeed, 118 is borrowed
more or less direct from Il. 16.183, which tells how Hermes (referred to as
țȡĮĲઃȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ; cf. 117) caught sight of the beautiful Polymele, and
thereupon fell in love with her, invaded her bedroom, had sex with her, and
got her pregnant. The information about the god’s actual purposes with the
princess offered in 126–7 (which continue to play, however, on the tradi-
tional language of rape-scenes; see n. ad loc.) thus comes as a surprise both
to her (when Hermes finally explains where he is taking her at the end of
their long journey within her inset narrative) and to Anchises (as she tells
him her story in the course of their unexpected encounter in the
cowyard)—and perhaps to the Hymn’s external audience as well. Cf. 123–
4 n.; Od. 15.427 ȝૅ ਕȞȒȡʌĮȟĮȞ*; Reinhardt (1956) 11–12; and for Hermes
as sexually active, 262–3 (sleeping with the nymphs) with n.
ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ: According to hHerm. 529–32 (corrupt in
531 and obscure throughout), Hermes’ gold staff (referred to also at Il.
24.343–4; Od. 5.47–8, 87; 10.277, 331; hDem. 335; hHerm. 539; h. 29.8,
13; for the material (conventional of attributes of the gods), see 16–17 n.)
keeps him safe and guarantees that all his undertakings succeed, provided
they are in accord with Zeus’ will (?); cf. h. 29.8, where the series of epi-
thets ‘messenger of the blessed ones, ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ, giver of good
things’ perhaps contains its own internal narrative logic: the messenger,
when vested with divine authority, can accomplish the ends men desire.
But within the narrative Otreus’ daughter offers Anchises, the epithet (used
again in 121) is better understood as representing the physical token that
allowed her to recognize her divine assailant. For ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ (the origi-
nal sense of which is obscure; see S. West on Od. 1.37ff), cf. 129, 213, 263
(different elements of a single formular system); h. 29.7.
ਥț ȤȠȡȠ૨ ਝȡĲȑȝȚįȠȢ ȤȡȣıȘȜĮțȐĲȠȣ țİȜĮįİȓȞȘȢ: In the embedded
hymn at 16–20 (where see nn.), Artemis is described with the same epi-
thets, and an oblique description is offered of rites in her honor as the vir-
gin goddess of hunting, and of the setting in which those rites are per-
formed, in ‘shady sacred groves and the city of just men’. 119–20 can
accordingly be understood as an account of one such celebration, in such a
grove, near or within such a city, with lyres (19) providing musical accom-
paniment for the chorus’ song; perhaps a number of choruses competing
against one another; and sacrifice afterward (cf. 19 n. on ੑȜȠȜȣȖĮȓ). Cf. the
implied setting of Alcman’s roughly contemporary partheneia; Calame
(2001) 91–101. But here the story is told from the perspective of a member
of a one group of celebrants with her own limited set of interests.
At Il. 18.593, from which the second half of 119 is drawn, the dancers
on Achilleus’ shield are all young and unmarried (਱ȓșİȠȚ țĮ੿ ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȚ
ਕȜĳİıȓȕȠȚĮȚ (‘young men and girls whose dowry will consist of many
oxen’)), but are differentiated by gender, as repeatedly again in the verses

that follow (esp. 595 Į੄ ȝ੻Ȟ ȜİʌĲ੹Ȣ ੑșȩȞĮȢ ਩ȤȠȞ, Ƞ੄ į੻ ȤȚĲ૵ȞĮȢ (‘the
girls wore light linen robes, while the boys wore cloaks’), 597 Į੄ ȝ੻Ȟ
țĮȜ੹Ȣ ıĲİĳȐȞĮȢ ਩ȤȠȞ, Ƞ੄ į੻ ȝĮȤĮȓȡĮȢ (‘the girls wore lovely head-
bands, while the boys carried daggers’)). Here, on the other hand, only
young women are referred to (note the absence of any mention of musi-
cians (cf. 19 with n.) or of tumblers at the heads of the lines of dancers
(e.g. Il. 18.604/5–6)), and the axis upon which their identity is marked is
marital status; for the distinction between ȞȪȝĳĮȚ (young women who
have recently married; * at Od. 6.105; 9.154) and ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȚ (unmarried
young women, but old enough to inspire sexual interest in men), cf. Od.
11.38–9. ʌȠȜȜĮȓ is a purely evaluative adjective, in that it magnifies the
occasion (serving the speaker’s own interests; see below) while offering no
additional specific information about it. That the unmarried girls in particu-
lar are described as likely to bring many oxen as their bride-price
(ਕȜĳİıȓȕȠȚĮȚ) is again—this time even more pointedly—flattering to
Otreus’ daughter (who was one of the group, as the first-person verb
ʌĮȓȗȠȝİȞ (imperfect rather than historical present) serves to remind her
interlocutor), and helps support her eventual insistence that she will be an
appropriate bride for Anchises (cf. 126–7 n.; for the abrupt reversal of the
issue of bride-price, see 139–40 n.). For the reference to the audience, cf.
Il. 18.603–4/5 ʌȠȜȜઁȢ įૅ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ ȤȠȡઁȞ ʌİȡȚȓıĲĮșૅ ੖ȝȚȜȠȢ /
ĲİȡʌȩȝİȞȠȚ (‘A large crowd surrounded the lovely dance, enjoying them-
selves’), although the onlookers there are implicitly presented as interested
in the dancers’ costumes and in the skill and speed with which they move,
rather than in the marriage-possibilities they represent. Here ਕȝĳ੿ …
ਥıĲİĳȐȞȦĲȠ (‘was surrounding (us)’) suggests that the description of the
audience as ਕʌİȓȡȚĲȠȢ (‘boundless’) reflects the assessment of the young
women themselves: there are crowds about them in every direction, ex-
tending as far as they can see.
ʌĮȓȗȠȝİȞ: used explicitly of singing accompanied by dance (as op-
posed to dancing alone, with the music provided by others) at [Hes.] Sc.
277, 282. The enjambed position of the verb iconically captures the con-
trast between the dancers and the audience (described in the words that
follow) that watches them.
Although ਥıĲİĳȐȞȦĲȠ is in the first instance figurative language, refer-
ring to how the crowd is organized ‘in a ring’ about the dancers (cf. Il.
15.153; Od. 10.195; [Hes.] Sc. 204), the word inevitably recalls as well the
garlands (ıĲȑĳĮȞȠȚ) worn at cultic occasions, and thus presumably by the
members of the audience (and the dancers) in the festival of Artemis imag-
ined here.
202 Commentary
121 ਩ȞșİȞ sums up the information provided in 118–20, and with that
background and all the erotic and social possibilities it creates and contains
in place, Aphrodite returns to the story she began and then abruptly broke
off at 117 (where see nn.).
122–124 Aphrodite’s point is not that, after she and Hermes left the Phryg-
ians’ extensive fields behind (122), they travelled through uninhabited
country until they came to Mount Ida (123–4), but that the god led her
through numerous separate cultivated areas, standing via synecdoche for
individual towns and villages (122), between which lay expanses of wil-
derness (123–4). The line-initial anaphora ʌȠȜȜ੹ … / ʌȠȜȜȒȞ thus has the
rhetorical function of emphasizing how far she has come, and how far she
is from home. The order in which the two principal elements in her story
are presented nonetheless serves to create a shorthand vision of her journey
that fits the basic facts of the case: she has been taken from the settled
world of men and out into the wild. That only one relatively unadorned line
in her account is devoted to the human world, while two far more richly
developed verses are allotted to the wilderness, thus both creates the im-
pression that the latter is more extensive than the former, and makes it
clear that Otreus’ daughter has been transported an enormous distance
from her normal urban environment.
ਵȖĮȖİȞ: see 125 n.
For the external audience of the Hymn, the phrase țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ can be understood as yet another reference to the already well-
established theme that the inevitability of death is a fundamental feature of
human existence and one that separates us decisively—and appropriately—
from the gods (35 with n., 38–9 with n., etc.). But within Aphrodite’s
speech, the contrast is instead between human beings, on the one hand, and
beasts (șોȡİȢ; cf. 68 with n.), on the other, and between our part of the
world (122) and theirs (123–4). The perspective is strikingly anthropocen-
tric throughout, in that wilderness is treated not as an independent sphere
opposed to the similarly independent world of men, but as whatever land
human beings have not (i.e. not yet) divided up and settled (ਙțȜȘȡȩȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿
ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ, on which see further below). 123–4 thus amount in some ways to
a series of negative explanatory glosses on ਩ȡȖĮ … ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ: humans
divide up and settle land, and work it, whereas beasts only ‘wander
through’ the territory left to them in search of other creatures to kill and
eat; they consume their food raw (੩ȝȠĳȐȖȠȚ; * at Il. 11.479; 16.157), as
we, by implication, do not; and their alleged fondness for ‘shadowy lairs’
(ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ) is a back-handed way of saying that our homes are
better lighted and more accessible—at least to us. The tone is accordingly
in part triumphant and superior (‘human beings have created a safe and
happy world of which the beasts have no share’), but also fearful. ‘The
wild’—that part of the physical world over which people exercise no con-
trol via their political institutions and the investment of labor those institu-
tions make possible (see below)—is defined by the presence not just of
animals generally but of predators, who are constantly on the prowl (਴Ȟ įȚ੹
/ … ĳȠȚĲ૵ıȚ) with murderous intent, and who lurk in spots where human
beings cannot see well and into which we are accordingly ill-advised to
intrude unless we are looking for a fight, adding some bitter point to
țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ (i.e. ‘who can be killed’; cf. 149 with n.). None of this is inap-
propriate to a story told by a privileged young girl abruptly snatched away
from her family and city, and dropped on a deserted mountainside far from
home. But the ideology implicit in Aphrodite’s comments is richer than
that, and seems reminiscent of 70–1 (where see n.); and the reference to
wild beasts țĮĲ੹ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ inevitably recalls in any case the
goddess’ easy mastery of the lions, wolves, wildcats, and bears on Mount
Ida in 69–74, throwing her feigned terror of such creatures here into quietly
amusing relief.
ʌȠȜȜȒȞ: sc. ȖĮ૙ĮȞ.
ਙțȜȘȡȩȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ captures in compact form the social and eco-
logical history of the ‘worked lands of human beings’ mentioned in the
previous verse, from a collective perspective, on the one hand, and an indi-
vidual one, on the other: the community allots (țȜȘȡȩȦ) land to its
members, who settle (țĲȓȗȦ) their portions and invest their labor
(ਥȡȖȐȗȠȝĮȚ) in them, eliminating the ‘shadowy lairs’ that shelter large
predators—as well as the predators themselves, if possible. ਙțĲȚĲȠȢ (cog-
nate with țĲȓȗȦ, ‘found, build, settled’; LSJ’s ‘untilled’ is too specific) is
attested in Mycenean but nowhere else in Greek literature; here it is used
for the sake of the jingle with ਙțȜȘȡȠȢ. Contrast the positive evaluation
ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ (of Cyprus) in 292. For the confusion in the MSS (ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ
MDL : ਙțĲȚıĲȠȞ Ata : ਙĲȚțĲȠȞ p) and its implications for the presence of
variants and superlinear corrections in Ȍ, see Introduction 6.
125 Ȍ’s ȥĮȪİȚȞ (advocated for by van Eck (1978) ad loc. and Smith (1979)
32–4, and printed by Faulkner (2008) and Richardson (2010)) would have
to be understood as a comment on the character of the speaker’s progress
through the lands described in 122–4, ‘I scarcely thought that my feet
touched the ground’, sc. ‘because we traveled so fast and so lightly’.
ਵȖĮȖİȞ in 122 arguably leaves open the possibility that Hermes ‘led’ Otre-
us’ daughter by the hand from Phrygia to Troy, after he snatched her out of
Artemis’ chorus (but contrast e.g. hDem. 30 (the rape of Persephone)
਷ȖİȞ), although ਕȞȒȡʌĮȟİ/ਸ਼ȡʌĮȟİ (117 ~ 121) is more naturally taken to
imply that nothing about the trip was voluntary, which is to say that she
was carried in Hermes’ arms; and as Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1963)
(citing Il. 14.225–30, esp. 228; 20.325–8, esp. 325 (miscited as 20.335);
204 Commentary
Od. 5.49; hDem. 377–83; add e.g. Il. 5.364–6; Od. 1.319–20) observe ad
loc., ‘the Gods and persons they conveyed flew’. See also van der Ben
(1986) 14–15. But the detail—which might have made better sense, on this
interpretation, if offered between 121 and 122—would in any case be flat
and unhelpful here, especially after ʌȠȜȜ੹ … / ʌȠȜȜȒȞ in 122–3, which has
already made the point that the journey was a long one. M’s ȥĮȪıİȚȞ, on
the other hand, represents an important contribution to the structure of the
narrative: by saying that she never expected to set foot on the ground
again, Aphrodite implies that she in fact did so, and precisely at this point,
after the long journey through the air described in 122–4. Although the
information in 126–8 (where see n.) is presented in a complicated fashion,
therefore, 125 serves to show that what follows represents a new stage in
the action, after Hermes and Otreus’ daughter have landed on Mount Ida.
This is the only explicit reference ‘Otreus’ daughter’ makes to her own
thoughts or feelings in this speech, although her attitudes and perceptions
are embedded throughout it.
The paradosis ਥįȩțȠȣȞ contains an Attic contraction corrected by La
Roche’s metrically equivalent įȩțİȠȞ (printed also by West (2003) and
Faulkner (2008)).
ĳȣıȚȗȩȠȣ Į੅ȘȢ: in Homer always in connection with the dead, whom
the earth holds within it (Il. 3.243*; Ȗો ĳȣıȓȗȠȠȢ 21.63; Od. 11.301*). Here
the epithet recalls the ideology of husbandry implicit in 122–4 (where see
n.), while expressing the speaker’s relief at touching the earth again and
thus, implicitly, the terror she experienced during her flight through the air.
L has again (cf. 99 with n.) corrected the text on the basis of its Homeric
model(s).
126–132 126–7 are modeled on Il. 19.287–8 (Briseis bewails the dead
Patroclus; see the first apparatus), with an echo of Od. 1.366 = 18.213
ʌĮȡĮ੿ ȜȑȤİıȚȞ țȜȚșોȞĮȚ (the Suitors pray to share Penelope’s bed) as well;
129 recalls both Hes. Op. 199 (Aidos and Nemesis will someday flee the
earth, ‘and baneful griefs will be left for mortal human beings’) and Od.
5.148 (Hermes departs for Olympus, having informed Calypso that she
may not keep Odysseus for herself); 130 is adapted from Od. 10.273
(Odysseus heads off to the house of Circe, another of his goddess lovers,
just before his own encounter with Hermes); 131 is modeled on Od. 13.324
(Odysseus addresses Athena upon his return to Ithaca), perhaps with a
reference to Il. 3.140 (Helen is filled with longing for her life before Troy;
cf. 45–6 n.) as well; and 132 is modeled on Od. 4.64 (Menelaus assesses
the look of Telemachus and Pisistratus), with a trace at the beginning of
Od. 4.236 (Helen for her part describes Telemachus and Pisistratus as
ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ ਥıșȜ૵Ȟ ʌĮ૙įİȢ (‘the children of excellent men’)). Aphrodite’s lie is
thus richly connected once again both to Homer’s story of the fall of Troy
and the tragedy of Priam and his family, on the one hand, and to the ques-
tion of the propriety (or wisdom) of goddesses sleeping with mortal men,
on the other; and it simultaneously sounds a gloomy note about the ulti-
mate future of human society, while signalling the occasional possibility of
happy endings and of a successful transition between generations. Cf. 109–
10 n., 111–12 n., 196–9 n.
126–129 Aphrodite begins her account of what Hermes told her with An-
chises treated as a third party and the emphasis on what other people will
know and say about the two of them (‘In Anchises’ bed you will be called
his wedded wife’, a condensed way of expressing ‘You will sleep in An-
chises’ bed and be called his wedded wife’; see further below). But the
second half of her report is a substantial step further removed from what
the god supposedly said in direct speech, for Anchises is now referred to in
the second person (ıȠȓ), putting his perspective and interests to the fore:
while the world as a whole will call Otreus’ daughter his wife, his children
will be ਕȖȜĮȐ in his own eyes in particular (‘and that I would bear you
children who would reflect well on you’ vel sim.). 128 might be intended to
describe a separate, subsequent stage in the imaginary action: after telling
Otreus’ daughter that she would marry someone named Anchises and bear
him children, Hermes pointed the man out (or told her where to find him).
The line is better understood, however, as summarizing the action de-
scribed in 126–7, in which case the order of the elements in what might
otherwise appear an awkward and opaque account of the god’s words (cf.
Kamerbeek (1967) 391–2) can be seen to match what Hermes might rea-
sonably be thought to have done and said, after he and Otreus’ daughter
landed on the side of Mount Ida (cf. 125 n.): he showed her (įİ૙ȟİ; cf. 134,
275) her future husband and explained the situation (țĮ੿ ਩ĳȡĮıİȞ): ‘This is
Anchises (ਝȖȤȓıİȦ); you will sleep with him (ʌĮȡĮ੿ ȜȑȤİıȚȞ) and will
accordingly be called his wedded wife (țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ / țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ);
and eventually you will bear him children who will reflect well on you
(ਕȖȜĮ੹ ĲȑțȞĮ Ĳİțİ૙ıșĮȚ, with the focalization of the adjective shifting
when Otreus’ daughter tells the story of her adventure to Anchises).’ For
the importance of 126 as explaining how Otreus’ daughter knows An-
chises’ name, see 108 n. In fact, Anchises is nowhere said to have more
than one son, Aeneas, except at [Apollod.] Bib. iii.12.2, where he is as-
signed in addition a certain Lyrus, ‘who died childless’.
126–127 In the course of her speech, Otreus’ daughter has (inter alia)
traced a version of her life-story, in normal chronological order, from her
birth (110), to the moment she was turned over to the nurse who raised her
(114–15), to her emergence in public as an marriageable young woman
(119–20 with nn.). But only with the abrupt revelation that Hermes carried
206 Commentary
her off to be Anchises’ bride rather than his own (cf. 117–20 n.) does it
become apparent how carefully her forged autobiography has been con-
structed to suggest her potential to be an ideal wife for him: she is well-
born, and in fact the daughter of a king who is a Trojan ally (111–12 n.);
she speaks, and indeed has an intimate feel for ‘Trojan’ (113, 116 with
nn.), but has no other history outside of her parents’ house (114–15); and
she is not just old enough to marry, but both extremely attractive, as the
enormous crowd that gathered to watch her dance at the festival of Artemis
in her native city (120) will attest, and likely to bring an enormous dowry
(119, cf. 139–40).
The combination of a future form of ĲȓțĲȦ (elsewhere generally
ĲȑȟȦ/ĲȑȟȠȝĮȚ; see below) with the phrase ਕȖȜĮ੹ ĲȑțȞĮ is characteristic of
divine rape-stories (Od. 11.249; Hes. fr. 31.2 (conjectural but likely), 4);
cf. 117–20 n. Ĳİțİ૙ıșĮȚ is not attested elsewhere, and it appears to be a
nonce form, invented on analogy with e.g. aorist ਪʌİıȠȞ < ʌȓʌĲȦ yielding
future ʌİıİ૙ıșĮȚ; cf. 197 ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ with n.
129–130 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȝİĲ੹ ĳ૨Ȝ(Į): cf. 3 n.; ȝİĲ੹ ĳ૨ȜĮ șİ૵Ȟ at Il.
15.54, 161 = 177; Hes. Op. 199 / ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ ȝİĲ੹ ĳ૨ȜȠȞ; hDem. 322,
443, 461; West on Hes. Th. 202 șİ૵Ȟ Ĳૅ ਥȢ ĳ૨ȜȠȞ, who notes that expres-
sions of the sort ‘the ĳ૨ȜȠȞ/ĳ૨ȜĮ of the gods’ are used almost exclusively
when someone goes to join them. But all Otreus’ daughter can know—and
all Aphrodite means to communicate—is that Hermes disappeared, leaving
her behind; if she claims that he went off to be with the other gods again,
that is only because that is the conventional destination of Olympians when
they break off contact with mortal creatures.
The characterization of Hermes as țȡĮĲȪȢ in 129 sets up țȡĮĲİȡ੽ …
ਕȞȐȖțȘ in 130: Hermes is responsible for the situation Otreus’ daughter
finds herself in or, put the other way around, he has articulated (in 126–7)
what inevitably will be, and she must make the best of it. For the phrase
țȡĮĲİȡ੽ … ਕȞȐȖțȘ, cf. (in addition to Od. 10.273, on which the verse is
modeled) Il. 6.458*; Hes. Th. 517; Cypr. fr. 9.3, p. 49 Bernabé; Parry
(1986) 257–9.
131–132 131 (~ 187) is a witty adaptation of Od. 13.324 / Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ ıİ ʌȡઁȢ
ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ (‘But now I beg you, in your father’s name’; Odysseus
addressing Athena), in that the father appealed to there is Zeus, whose
name replaces the metrically equivalent ʌĮĲȡȩȢ in this verse.
ʌȡઁȢ ǽȘȞઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ ਱į੻ ĲȠțȒȦȞ: Among the most obviously
amusing elements of the portion of Aphrodite’s speech that follows, in
which she pleads with Anchises to accept her as his wife, is the representa-
tion of this request as something her interlocutor might be disinclined to
do. For supplication accompanied by a mention of parents, cf. Il. 15.659–

63; 22.338; 24.466–7; Od. 11.66–7.
ʌȡઁȢ ǽȘȞȩȢ: sc. in his capacity as god of suppliants and strangers (esp.
Od. 14.56–9), who can be assumed to take an interest in seeing that the
requests put forward in 133–42 are granted.
132 is nominally praise of Anchises’ parents rather than of Anchises
himself. Nor does Aphrodite ever refer specifically to the quality that dis-
tinguishes him (and thus them, as his begetters) in her eyes, but speaks
instead in vague terms of ‘excellence’ vel sim. (ਥıșȜ૵Ȟ (with force added
to the adjective via enjambment), Ƞ੝ … țĮțȠȓ = an emphatic țĮȜȠȓ). But
the narrator has twice described Anchises as extremely good-looking (55,
77), and has made it clear that his physical appearance is what inspired
Aphrodite with desire for him (56–7); and the line—unnecessary to the
syntax of the goddess’ appeal—must accordingly be read as a bit of flattery
masquerading (none too aggressively) as the sort of vague commendatory
remark that epic aristocrats conventionally make about one another’s fami-
lies (cf. the passages from Od. 4 cited as models for this verse in 126–32
n.; hDem. 213–14).
133–142 What Otreus’ daughter proposes is that she and Anchises follow
the correct cultural script for a wedding: he ought to take her, still a virgin
(133), to visit his family, in order to get his parents’ approval of the match
(134–6); her own parents should also be informed of their plans, and al-
lowed to respond in one way or another (137–8), although their inevitable
delight is treated as a given (139–40; contrast the diffident tone in 136);
and a public celebration of the union should follow (141–2). But none of
this is what she wants, and Anchises rapidly makes his lack of interest in
the usual social niceties apparent (145–51, esp. 150–1).
133–135 The emphasis on the speaker’s lack of sexual experience in 133
fits with her insistence in 134–5 that the first thing she wants from An-
chises is to meet his family, who will presumably regard this as an im-
portant qualification to be a ȞȣઁȢ … İੁțȣ૙Į (136). But the negative terms
(‘unmastered and inexperienced in love-making’) in which Otreus’ daugh-
ter presents herself in 133 can also be read as a plea that her physical integ-
rity be respected by the stranger she has just met—although in the event
she makes no objection when he proposes taking her off to bed immediate-
ly (145–54). At the same time, Aphrodite’s remarks can be understood as
part of the process by which she continues to tease and tantalize her inter-
locutor (cf. 131–2 with n.): her status as a virgin is part of what makes her
attractive (cf. 14–15 n., 84–5 n.; thus van der Ben (1986) 15).
ਕįȝȒĲȘȞ (cf. 82 with n.; * at Il. 10.293; Od. 3.383) and ਕʌİȚȡȒĲȘȞ
ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȠȢ describe the same condition, but from the perspective of the man
208 Commentary
(who does the ‘mastering’), on the one hand, and the woman (who gains
‘experience of love-making’), on the other. In both cases, however, the
perspective adopted is that of the male partner, who exercises power over
the woman while (as he sees it) offering her access to something she has
not known before; and the interests and concerns embedded in the descrip-
tion are those of Anchises rather than of his parents and his siblings, and
certainly not of Otreus’ daughter. Forms of ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȠȢ appear * at e.g. Il.
14.163; Od. 8.271; Hes. Th. 224; hAp. 208.
For the contrast between the reference to Anchises’ father simply with
the possessive adjective ı૵Ț, but to his mother with the emotionally more
vivid țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣȓȘȚ, cf. 42–3, 109–10 n., 138. The latter description (cf.
ȝȘĲȑȡȚ țİįȞોȚ at Od. 10.8; Hes. Op. 130) is persuasive: ‘who is devoted to
you’, sc. ‘and upon whose affection I can accordingly call as part of this
appeal’ (cf. 131–2). Anchises’ brothers (or ‘siblings’?) are more richly
described than either of their parents, with both a possessive adjective and
a relative clause. But they drop out of the narrative in 136, where the use of
the term ȞȣȩȢ (‘daughter-in-law’; far and away the most common sense of
the word) leaves no doubt that the point at issue is how his father and his
mother (not his family generally) will evaluate their son’s prospective
bride. The brothers are thus arguably intruders here, and the precise signif-
icance of Ƞ੄ … ੒ȝȩșİȞ ȖİȖȐĮıȚȞ, which might mean either ‘who were born
of the same two parents’ or ‘who were born of the same mother’, is like-
wise obscure, although the resumptive ıĳȚȞ in 136 suggests that the former
alternative is to be preferred. But the presence of ĲȠȚ (making the sense
‘who were born in your interest’, i.e. ‘whom you have got’) leaves no
doubt in any case that the crucial point is that it is good for a man to have
brothers, so that the fact that Anchises’ parents (or mother) have given him
some, amounts to another reason why he ought to accede to the request
Otreus’ daughter is making in their name (131). Anchises is not assigned
brothers (or sisters, for that matter) anywhere else in the literary tradition;
but there is no reason why his visitor—who is no longer quoting Hermes or
following his specific orders—should be aware that her future husband is
an only child, and the idea that he must belong to a richly flourishing line
is implicitly flattering (cf. 104). For ʌĮĲȡȓ Ĳİ ı૵Ț, cf. Il. 8.283*. For Ƞ੆ ĲȠȚ
੒ȝȩșİȞ ȖİȖȐĮıȚȞ, cf. Od. 5.476–7 įȠȚȠઃȢ … șȐȝȞȠȣȢ / ਥȟ ੒ȝȩșİȞ
ʌİĳȣ૵ĲĮȢ; Hes. Op. 108 ੪Ȣ ੒ȝȩșİȞ ȖİȖȐĮıȚȞ șİȠ੿ șȞȘĲȠȓ Ĳૅ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ.
This is one of three examples in the Hymn (also 225, 230) of hiatus after
ĲȠȚ; contrast 178.
For țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣȓȘȚ (in place of the MSS’s țȑįȞૅ İੁįȣȓȘȚ vel sim.), cf. 44
țİįȞ੹ ੁįȣ૙ĮȞ* with n.
ıȠ૙Ȣ Ĳİ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȢ: M’s unmetrical and nonsensical įȠȚȫ Ĳİ
țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȦ (nominative/accusative/vocative dual) perhaps originated in a
note that attempted to explain an error of some sort by claiming that the
phrase ought to be in the dual (ıȠ૙Ȟ Ĳİ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȞ) rather than the plural.
Or perhaps 135 ought simply to be expelled from the text; cf. 136 n.
136 represents Otreus’ daughter’s summary of the case she expects to
make (or have made for her) when Anchises puts her on display (134
įİ૙ȟȠȞ) to his family and in particular to his parents (ıĳȚȞ; see 133–5 n.),
whose looming judgment of her merits as a daughter-in-law is embedded in
the contrast between the adjectives ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ and İੁțȣ૙Į (‘unacceptable? or
acceptable?’); cf. 137–40 n. For İੁțȣ૙Į used absolutely of a wife who is
‘appropriate’ (sc. to her husband’s status, aspirations, and the like), cf. Il.
9.399 (Achilleus describing his own marital prospects, if he declines to
have Agamemnon’s daughter); and note hDem. 83–4 Ƞ੡ ĲȠȚ ਕİȚț੽Ȣ /
ȖĮȝȕȡȩȢ (‘not an unacceptable son-in-law for you’; the Sun-god’s evalua-
tion of Hades for Demeter).
Between 136 and 137, MĬ have an additional line, İ੅ ĲȠȚ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ
ȖȣȞ੽ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਱੻ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝țȓ (‘(so that they can decide) whether I will be an
inappropriate wife (sc. for you) or not’), which is patently a doublet of 136
and must have stood in ȍ. (p have a single line Ƞ੡ ıĳȚȞ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȖȣȞ੽
਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਱੻ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝țȓ, in place of 136–6a, the scribe’s eye having leapt from
ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ in the first verse to the same word in the second, producing the
hybrid, which has no authority.) Either the two verses must be combined
into one (İ੅ ıĳȚȞ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȖȣȞ੽ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਲ਼ İੁțȣ૙Į Ruhnken; Ƞ੡ ıĳȚȞ
ਕİȚțİȜȓȘ ȖȣȞ੽ ਩ııȠȝĮȚ, ਕȜȜૅ İੁțȣ૙Į Humbert), or one or the other must be
expelled from the text. With the exception of van der Ben (1986) 15–17,
who would print 136a between 138 and 139, but whose proposed transla-
tion (‘to tell my father and mother … whether I shall be an unseemly wife
for you or no’) represents an even more awkward use of İੁʌİ૙Ȟ than the
generally accepted one he argues against (‘to tell [the news]’), modern
editors are united in retaining 136 and rejecting 136a. ਱੻ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝țȓ might
easily have originated in a corruption of ਲ਼ İੁțȣ૙Į (thus Shackle (1915)
163–4, arguing for Ruhnken’s text), and ȖȣȞȒ could represent a deliberate
attempt to remove ȞȣȩȢ, which might have been thought to sit awkwardly
with the reference in 135 to Anchises’ brothers (for whom his new wife
would be instead a sister-in-law), from the text (thus Càssola (1975)); sub-
sequent attempts to mend the meter and integrate the revised version of the
verse syntactically and logically with what followed and preceded probably
produced the variant preserved alongside the original in the MSS. See also
above on the problematic 135 (another clumsy product of editorial inter-
vention in this section of the text?).
137–140 Second-person active imperative ʌȑȝȥȠȞ (cf. 134 įİ૙ȟȠȞ) would
do just as well metrically as infinitive-for-imperative ʌȑȝȥĮȚ at the begin-
210 Commentary
ning of 137, and the shift in construction perhaps suggests that Anchises’
family, having approved of his marriage to Otreus’ daughter, are now im-
agined as communicating collectively with the Phrygian king and his wife.
The projected marriage-gifts, on the other hand, are to be sent to Anchises
personally (139–40; and cf. 141–2 n.).
੯țĮ: The reason why Otreus’ daughter urges that a messenger be sent
to Phrygia ‘quickly’ appears initially to be supplied by țȘįȠȝȑȞȘȚ in the
next verse: the queen is worried about her vanished child. (For language
implying affection, devotion, and the like associated with the mother but
not the father, cf. 109–10 n., 133–5 n.). But ʌİȡ suggests that this emotion
stands in contrast to one more relevant to the matter Otreus’ daughter is
discussing (‘although she feels concern’, i.e. ‘upset though she may be’).
The message from Anchises’ family will calm the anxieties of Otreus’ wife
in any case. But the real reason that news of the engagement must be dis-
patched to Phrygia as quickly as possible, is that the sooner that is done,
the sooner the parents’ gifts—and the consent to the marriage they repre-
sent (cf. below)—can be brought back, allowing the wedding to take place.
ȝİĲ੹ ĭȡȪȖĮȢ ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ: Whatever the significance of the adjec-
tive (see below), the most important function of this phrase is to recall
again Priam’s description of Otreus at Il. 3.185–6 (cf. 111 with n.) and thus
the extent of the Phrygian king’s power and the desirability of entering into
a marriage-alliance with him. Horses suggest—and indeed embody—
wealth; if ĮੁȠȜȠʌȫȜȠȣȢ means ‘of the rapid steeds’, as seems likely (cf. Il.
19.404 ʌȩįĮȢ ĮੁȩȜȠȢ ੆ʌʌȠȢ), the further implication is that, however fast
the Trojan messenger travels to Phrygia, a response will come back even
faster, and laden with lavish presents (cf. 139–40).
Otreus and his wife ought to have the same power to approve or disap-
prove their daughter’s marriage as Anchises’ parents do (134–6 with n.).
But Aphrodite makes no mention of that, and instead describes the gifts
they will send when they—inevitably, it seems—agree to the match. At
119, where Otreus’ daughter is advertising her own desirability, she im-
plies that a bride’s family normally receives a substantial ‘price’ for her.
Here, by contrast, where the goal is to convince Anchises to have her, the
woman’s family sends the gifts. Perhaps even more striking, the gold and
textiles the prospective bridegroom will be offered are described as ਙʌȠȚȞĮ
(‘compensation’; cf. 210), as if the Phrygians were suppliants or somehow
in the wrong, implicitly allowing Anchises to make a display of magna-
nimity simply by accepting their gifts (as at Il. 1.377, on which the end of
140 is modeled, where Agamemnon signally fails to act so wisely). Cf.
Keaney (1981) 261–4; van der Ben (1986) 17.
The explicit indication of shift of subject produced by Ƞ੄ įȑ țȑ ‫ۃ‬ĲȠȚ‫ ۄ‬is
syntactically unnecessary, and ȤĮȜțȩȞ Ĳİ (which occurs in this sedes in Od.
13.136 = 16.231, on which this verse is modeled) could easily have been
retained at the beginning of 139. But bronze is not something one sends in
large quantities as a gift, at least by horseback (cf. 137 with n.).
In ȤȡȣıઁȞ … ਚȜȚȢ the adverb stresses the amount of gold Anchises
will receive from his bride’s parents, whereas in ਥıșોĲĮ … ਫ਼ĳĮȞĲȒȞ the
adjective brings out the effort invested in producing the cloth; after the
separate references to King Otreus and his wife in 138, the first item is
naturally taken to represent his contribution to the gift, whereas the cloth-
ing will be sent by the girl’s mother, who made it with her own hands. Cf.
14–15 n.; Od. 8.441 and 13.66–7 (Arete adds a robe and a tunic to the pre-
sents—described in the verses on which 139 is modeled—given to Odys-
seus by the Phaeacian men); 15.110–29 (Menelaus makes Telemachus a
farewell gift of a gold and silver mixing-bowl, while Helen brings him a
robe that she wove herself and explicitly offers in anticipation of his mar-
riage).
The adjectives in 140 are intended to persuade Anchises, who will,
Otreus’ daughter assures him, be impressed not just by the quantity of gifts
her parents send (ʌȠȜȜȐ), but by the positive light they shed on him as the
recipient of this lavish display of favor (ਕȖȜĮȐ; cf. 126–9 n.; Od. 13.135 =
16.230, where the gifts the Phaeacians offer Odysseus are described as
ਕȖȜĮ੹ į૵ȡĮ).
141–142 The wedding-feast (standing via synecdoche for the wedding
itself) will be ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ because Anchises will desire it at that point, since
it will (142) bring him honor (ĲȚȝȒ) not just among human beings but
among the gods as well, bringing Otreus’ daughter back to the first point in
her request (131 ʌȡઁȢ ǽȘȞઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ with n.). For the phrase ȖȐȝȠȞ
ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ, cf. ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ ȖȐȝȠȞ at Hes. frr. 37.6; 211.6 (conjectural). That
the bridegroom is imagined hosting his own wedding-feast is unexpected
(contrast Il. 19.299 (Patroclus promised to arrange a wedding-feast for
Achilleus and Briseis); Od. 4.3–4 (Menelaus gives a double wedding-feast
for his son and daughter)), but is consistent with the relentless, flattering
attention paid to Anchises throughout the final portion of Aphrodite’s
speech; cf. 137–40 n. (on the receipt of the Phrygian presents).
įĮȓȞȣ ȖȐȝȠȞ: For įĮȓȞȣȝȚ in the active with an internal accusative of
the meal or occasion celebrated (LfgrE s.v. B 1), cf. Il. 9.70; 19.299
įĮȓıİȚȞ į੻ ȖȐȝȠȞ (Briseis to the dead Patroclus; the immediately preceding
verses are evoked at 126–7); 23.29; Od. 3.309; 4.3 įĮȓȞȣȞĲĮ ȖȐȝȠȞ. The
variant reading įĮȓȞȞȣ in most of the Ȍ-family MSS probably reflects the
presence of a superlinear nu taken over into some copies of the text but not
into others; see Introduction 6.
212 Commentary
143–144 143 = Il. 3.139 (quoted at less length at 45, 53), where Iris charms
Helen, who immediately sets off to the city’s gates and discusses the Greek
champions from Troy’s walls with Priam there (cf. 111–12 n.). When the
disguised Aphrodite comes to fetch her later, Helen recognizes the goddess
and makes an angry speech introduced by the formula ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ
ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ (Il. 3.398, although the formula is widely attested elsewhere; cf.
the second apparatus, and see 87–90 n. for another possible echo of the
verse).
੬Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıĮ summarizes 108–42 as whole, but must refer in particular
to the request at 131–42, to which the speech by Anchises that follows
responds specifically. ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੆ȝİȡȠȞ ਩ȝȕĮȜİ șȣȝ૵Ț is not a second action
separate from and subsequent to Aphrodite’s speech (as if the participial
clause meant ‘after speaking thus’), but summarizes its effect (‘by speaking
thus, by means of these words’). ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ at the beginning of
the next verse performs the same function again, but simultaneously trans-
fers the attention of the narrative from Aphrodite (143) to Anchises (144,
where the agent has been transformed into the impersonal ‘lust’, glossing
‘desire’ in 143 in a way typical of the Hymn; cf. 45–6 n., 57).
ਝȖȤȓıȘȞ įૅ ਩ȡȠȢ İੈȜİȞ: Anchises has already been described as in-
spired by lust at 91*, making the renewed reference to his emotional or
psychological state in one sense unnecessary. But Anchises’ desire to get
Aphrodite into bed—and as quickly as possible—is such a fundamental
motivator for the speech that follows (esp. 149–54) that it bears mentioning
a second time; more complicated explanations, such as that offered by van
der Ben (1986) 10–11 (‘Whereas ਩ȡȠȢ stands for a disposition, the word
੆ȝİȡȠȢ would seem to apply to desires—only in contexts where their ful-
filment is simultaneously striven for in immediate action’), are beside the
point. The further consequence of this presentation of the situation is that
mention is made of Anchises taking Aphrodite’s hand only in 155; cf. be-
low and n. ad loc.
The formula ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ is often used even when the
speaker does not go on to refer to his or her interlocutor by name (e.g. Il.
5.372; 6.253, 485; see in general Calhoun (1935) 223–6 (who argues that
in Homer, use of the formula communicates above all else the earnestness
and intimacy of the situation); Couch (1937) 129–40, esp. 136–40 (who
maintains that the speaker is in most cases socially superior to the address-
ee—as is not the case here)). But Anchises now knows that his visitor is
Otreus’ daughter, as he did not the first time he addressed her, and he in
fact refers to her as such in 146, so that the phrase is now more appropriate
than it would have been in 91 ਩ʌȠȢ įȑ ȝȚȞ ਕȞĲȓȠȞ Ș੡įĮ*, where see n. Cf.
176* (the only other use of the formula in the Hymn), where the second
word in the speech that begins in 177 is ǻĮȡįĮȞȓįȘ. The first half of a line
that ends this way generally describes a gesture or a movement, most often
taking the interlocutor’s hand (਩Ȟ Ĳૅ ਙȡĮ Ƞੂ ĳ૨ ȤİȚȡȓ at e.g. Il. 6.253, 406;
18.384, 423; Od. 8.291; 10.280; waking Anchises up at 176, where see n.).
Here that idea is postponed until 155, where the language is tellingly non-
traditional.
145–146 ੪Ȣ ਕȖȠȡİȪİȚȢ marks everything Anchises has said up to this point
in response to Otreus’ daughter as something approximating as a quotation
(~ 110–11, where see n.). But the clause also serves to pointedly remind
the external audience that the purpose Anchises announces in 149–55 is a
direct consequence of his reliance on all the individual points in the ex-
tended series of İੁ-clauses in 145–8: he has been lied to and taken in by
Aphrodite, and a case can thus be made that he is not responsible for any-
thing terrible that may happen to him as a consequence of sleeping with
her. Cf. 166–7 (a summary of the situation by the narrator, who notes that
Anchises slept with Aphrodite both because the gods wanted this and out
of ignorance) with n., 185–6 (where Anchises himself argues in his own
defense that he was taken in) with n.; Smith (1981a) 55–6; de Jong (1989)
17. This in turn supports the notion that Anchises’ remarks at 92–9 about
the possibility that his visitor may be an Olympian goddess, or at least a
Grace or a local nymph, are not to be taken altogether seriously; cf. 91–106
n. But he is in any case allowed to quote not just Aphrodite’s claim in 111
to be Otreus’ daughter (her supposedly exalted parentage being something
that might reasonably increase his interest in marrying her, making it worth
mentioning in this context; note ੑȞȠȝȐțȜȣĲȠȢ), but also her insistence in
110 that she is mortal and that her mother is a human being (which is in her
own speech merely a coy response to his flattery, and accordingly requires
no repeating), because her status as an immortal will become an issue later
in the poem.
147–148 are a much-condensed version of the forged recent personal histo-
ry Aphrodite offered Anchises at 117–30. (Cf. 145–6 ~ 110–11 with n.; the
identification of Otreus as king of Phrygia in 112 and the explanation of
his daughter’s ability to speak ‘Trojan’ in 113–16 are information of a
different sort and require no reference here.) Hermes’ agency (ਪțȘĲȚ) is
mentioned because he brought ‘Otreus’ daughter’ from her otherwise im-
possibly distant homeland to Mount Ida (cf. below). But the other colorful
and revealing details of her journey have been systematically stripped out;
all that matters, as Anchises re-tells the story, is that she is here (ਥȞșȐįૅ
ੂțȐȞİȚȢ; cf. 130 ਥȖઅ ıૅ ੂțȩȝȘȞ) and that she will be regarded as his wife
(ਥȝ੽ įૅ ਙȜȠȤȠȢ țİțȜȒıİĮȚ; cf. 125–6 ਝȖȤȓıİȦ … ȝİ … țĮȜȑİıșĮȚ /
țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ).
214 Commentary
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ … / ૽ǼȡȝȑȦ: Although the original

meaning of the epithet įȚȐțĲȠȡȠȢ was obscure already in antiquity, the
Hymn-poet apparently took it to be derived from įȚȐȖȦ (‘carry across,
guide’ vel sim.), since Anchises’ point is that Hermes brought Otreus’
daughter to Troy from far away (cf. 122–4); cf. 213 with n. But the rework-
ing in the first halves of these lines of Od. 15.319 ૽ǼȡȝİȓĮȠ ਪțȘĲȚ
įȚĮțĲȩȡȠȣ (nowhere else in early epic), where Hermes is further character-
ized ੖Ȣ ૧Ȑ Ĳİ ʌȐȞĲȦȞ / ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ਩ȡȖȠȚıȚ ȤȐȡȚȞ țĮ੿ ț૨įȠȢ ੑʌȐȗİȚ (‘who
bestows elegance and renown on the deeds of all human beings’) simulta-
neously marks this as a quiet expression of confidence in the plan (articu-
lated in ਥȝ੽ įૅ ਙȜȠȤȠȢ țĲȜ.) the god appears to have endorsed. For the
genitive singular form ૽ǼȡȝȑȦ (in synizesis, and correpted by the vowel
that follows), cf. hHerm. 413*.
Both Ȍ’s ਕșĮȞĮĲȠ૙Ƞ įૅ ਪțȘĲȚ and M’s ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ įૅ ਪțĮĲȚ neglect
digamma; the question is whether this neglect is better charged to the poet
(in which case Ȍ’s version of the text is correct) or to a later scribe who
elided į੻ into įૅ (in which case M’s resolved genitive is correct, although
further emendation is necessary). Other early epic poetry consistently re-
spects the digamma in ਪțȘĲȚ, and (like West (2003), Faulkner (2008), and
Richardson (2010)) I print Hermann’s ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣ į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ and assume that
Ȍ’s text represents a deliberate attempt to mend the meter after įૅ ਪțȘĲȚ
was written for į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ.
ਥȝ੽ įૅ ਙȜȠȤȠȢ țİțȜȒıİĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ is both a hopeful expansion of
the prophecy reported at 125–6 (since Hermes is supposed to have told
Otreus’ daughter that she would be called Anchises’ wife, but not ‘for all
your/our days’) and a pointed contraction of it (since Anchises makes no
mention of the children they will have, his only interest for the moment
being in getting his beautiful visitor into bed as rapidly as possible (149–
51)).
149–150 149 is modeled on Il. 1.547–8 (quoted in the first apparatus),
where Zeus and Hera are quarrelling—providing an ironic backdrop to the
expectation of a long and presumably happy marriage to Otreus’ daughter
that Anchises envisions in 148—and Zeus reminds her that his plans and
intentions are by and large his alone, meaning that mortal creatures are a
fortiori unable to understand the gods’ purposes (cf. 147) with them, an
idea brought out here through the use of the always vaguely threatening
șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (cf. 122 with n., 151–4 with nn.). But Anchises’ enthu-
siastic response to the attempt to seduce him also recalls Zeus’ unwilling-
ness to allow anything or anyone to stop him from sleeping with Hera im-
mediately at Il. 14.342–6.
150 is clumsily expressed (and—not coincidentally—largely inde-
pendent of traditional early epic formulae), but the sense is clear. ਥȞșȐįİ
ȝİ ıȤȒıİȚ ʌȡȓȞ is literally ‘will hold me here before’, i.e. ‘will keep me
from’ (cf. Il. 17.502–4 Ƞ੝ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥȖȫ Ȗİ / ૠǼțĲȠȡĮ ȆȡȚĮȝȓįȘȞ ȝȑȞİȠȢ
ıȤȒıİıșĮȚ ੑȓȦ, / ʌȡȓȞ Ȗૅ ਥʌૅ ਝȤȚȜȜોȠȢ țĮȜȜȓĲȡȚȤİ ȕȒȝİȞĮȚ ੆ʌʌȦ (‘for I
don’t expect that Priam’s son Hector will end his rampage until he reaches
Achilleus’ flowing-maned horses’); LfgrE s.v. B I b Į bb ĮĮ, p. 845), alt-
hough the idea of movement through space is quickly activated in 155–7.
The unparalleled expression ıોȚ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ȝȚȖોȞĮȚ (cf. 16–17 n., 38–9 n.),
meanwhile, uses the possessive adjective in place of an objective genitive
(‘to mix in love with you’). For the language, cf. 287; h. 19.34 ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ
ȝȚȖોȞĮȚ*; ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ ȝȚȖİ૙ıĮ * at Od. 19.266; Hes. Th. 125, 333, 375,
920, 927; hHerm. 4; hBacch. 57; h. 18.4; Cypr. fr. 9.2, p. 49 Bernabé).
151–154 Į੝ĲȓțĮ Ȟ૨Ȟ: i.e. ignoring all the items in the long catalogue of
socially appropriate actions for a couple planning to wed offered by Aph-
rodite in 133–42, which leads up to but never mentions the wedding night.
Ƞ੝įૅ İ੅ țİȞ țĲȜ gives more specific content to the possibility envisioned
in 149–50, that some god or human being might try to prevent Anchises
from sleeping with Otreus’ daughter, by offering an extreme case: Apollo
himself (Į੝ĲઁȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ)—rather than a member of one of their families
(cf. 133–8), for example, or even some minor deity who had taken a fancy
to the girl—might attempt to interfere. But exactly what an assault by the
god’s arrows would mean is spelled only in 154, after the emotional tem-
perature of Anchises’ speech has been raised further by the emphatic re-
sumptive ȕȠȣȜȠȓȝȘȞ țİȞ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ in the first half of 153, followed by the
hyperbolic vocative ȖȪȞĮȚ İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚ in the second: at that point, he
would be willing to die, provided he managed to get her into bed first. This
is all rhetorical posturing: Anchises is alone on a mountainside far from the
city, and he has no reason to think that anyone has any interest in keeping
him from doing whatever he wishes with his visitor and presumed wife-to-
be, let alone that a major Olympian god might choose to strike him dead on
that account. But the nonchalant willingness he expresses to suffer any-
thing for the sake of a brief if delicious sexual adventure stands in sharp
and revealing contrast to his reaction in 187–90 (where see n.), when he
discovers who Otreus’ daughter really is, and considers what might happen
to him as a consequence; and cf. 160 with n.
153–4 make it clear that what Anchises imagines, is that Apollo might
choose to shoot him dead, but only after he and Otreus’ daughter have had
sex. The god is therefore appropriately described as ਦțȘȕȩȜȠȢ (‘who
shoots from afar’; cf. LfgrE s.v. B, implicitly correcting the entry in LSJ):
he can interfere, but only from a distance, i.e. not immediately, and An-
chises can do what he wants in the meantime, provided he is willing to pay
the price.
216 Commentary
ĲȩȟȠȣ ਙʌૅ ਕȡȖȣȡȑȠȣ is not a traditional expression, and instead con-

verts Apollo’s common epithet ਕȡȖȣȡȩĲȠȟȠȢ (e.g. Il. 1.37 = 451; 5.449,
760; Od. 7.64; 15.410; Hes. fr. 185.9; hAp. 140) into a prepositional
phrase, which both serves to stress his divine majesty (cf. 16–17 n.) and
recalls the line-end formula ਕȡȖȣȡȑȠȚȠ ȕȚȠ૙Ƞ (e.g. Il. 1.49). For Apollo as
responsible for the deaths of men, and young men in particular, e.g. Il.
21.277–8; Od. 7.64; 15.410–11; Hes. fr. 279; cf. LfgrE s. ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞ B 2b.
ʌȡȠȧોȚ: The p-scribe, misled by the accentuation in ȍ (ʌȡȠ૘Ș MĬ),
took this for a form of ʌȡȩİȚȝȚ, which he ‘corrected’ to optative ʌȡȠ૘ȠȚ (to
match 153 ȕȠȣȜȠȓȝȘȞ?).
ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ anticipates the reaction of the intended victim, in this case
Anchises himself: anyone hit by Apollo’s arrows can expect to groan
(ıĲȑȞȦ) in pain. Cf. h. 27.6 with n.
਩ʌİȚĲĮ introduces a note of incongruity into the assertion (cf. LSJ s.v. I
3; Dover on Ar. Ra. 205), ‘but then’—i.e. ‘provided I manage to have sex
with you’—‘I’d be quite willing to die!’
ȖȪȞĮȚ İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚ is a bit of conventional flattery (cf. 91–106 n.),
marking what follows as a proposition to Otreus’ daughter as much a
statement of Anchises’ independent, individual purpose. But his descrip-
tion of her also serves to identify the ground for the bold claim advanced in
these verses: only because she is so beautiful (cf. 84–5 with n.) would he
risk anything to have her. The final syllable in vocative ȖȪȞĮȚ is short, but
is lengthened here via respect for the digamma at the beginning of İੁțȣ૙Į;
for the prosody, cf. ȖȣȞ੽ İੁțȣ૙Į șİોȚıȚȞ / at Il. 11.638*; 19.286*.
ıોȢ İ੝ȞોȢ ਥʌȚȕȐȢ: for the expression, e.g. 161; Il. 9.133 = 275 =
19.176; Od. 10.347; [Hes.] Sc. 16, 40; Musae. 79 Į੝ĲȓțĮ ĲİșȞĮȓȘȞ ȜİȤȑȦȞ
ਥʌȚȕȒȝİȞȠȢ ૽ǾȡȠ૨Ȣ (probably not modeled directly on the Hymn; see In-
troduction 3); cf. LfgrE s. ȕĮ૙ȞȦ B II 8cȖ. The bed in question actually
belongs to Anchises. But ‘your bed’ means ‘the bed you are/will be in’, as
at 230 ĲȠ૨ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ İ੝ȞોȢ ȝ੻Ȟ ਕʌİȓȤİĲȠ ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ, where the bed Dawn
avoids is properly her own but is identified as Tithonus’ because he sleeps
in it.
155–156 ੬Ȣ İੁʌȫȞ summarizes 145–54, and regardless of whether we are
supposed to imagine that Anchises takes Aphrodite’s hand ‘as he said
(this)’ or ‘after he said (this)’ (cf. 143–4 n.), the crucial point is that the
gesture is a physical expression of the content and implications of his
speech. It is accordingly referred to only now, as the narrative moves away
from words (91–154) and back to actions (cf. 45–90).
After 149–51 in particular, ȜȐȕİ Ȥİ૙ȡĮ looks less like an invitation than
an assertion of authority, ownership, and control: Otreus’ daughter belongs
to Anchises (cf. 147–8), and by taking her hand, he claims her in a fashion
reminiscent of a marriage-gesture (cf. Bergren (1989) 23). In any case, the
active and aggressive role is now his, and she merely consents to follow his
lead to what is emphatically presented in what follows as his bed (158–60),
and in a way that emphasizes and allows for the expression of her own
supposed modesty (below). For a woman following her lover to bed, cf. Il.
3.447 (Paris and Helen) ਷ ૧Į, țĮ੿ ਙȡȤİ ȜȑȤȠıįİ țȚȫȞā ਚȝĮ įૅ İ੆ʌİĲૅ ਙțȠȚĲȚȢ
(‘So he spoke, and he led the way, going to bed; his wife followed along
with him’).
Aphrodite has been standing at Anchises’ door, facing him (cf. 75, 81),
and she now enters the house behind him, to go to his bed (157). Although
he presumably pivots about to go inside, still holding her hand, therefore,
she does not, but must instead walk straight ahead (ਪȡʌİ).
ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ (forms of the verb * at Il. 8.258; 11.447; 15.52; Od.
2.67) is accordingly not ‘turned around’ (van Eck (1978) ad loc.; cf. West
(2003) ‘turned’) vel sim., but must describe the same action as țĮĲૅ
੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ, which serves to gloss and expand the specific
sense of the word that precedes it: as Aphrodite enters Anchises’ house,
she turns her head and upper body about, casting her eyes down toward the
ground in a display of maidenly modesty (ĮੁįȫȢ; cf. 21 n.); cf. 182 (An-
chises turns his eyes away from Aphrodite when she reveals herself to him
in her proper divine form) with n.; hDem. 214 ਥʌȓ ĲȠȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ੕ȝȝĮıȚȞ
ĮੁįȫȢ (‘your eyes display a becoming modesty’) with Richardson ad loc.
(but with no explanation of why it is that ‘ĮੁįȫȢ and ȤȐȡȚȢ were thought of
as having their seat in the eyes’, as if this was assumed to be a physiologi-
cal rather than a social fact) and on hDem. 194 (comparing inter alia Il.
3.427, where Helen is described as ੕ııİ ʌȐȜȚȞ țȜȓȞĮıĮ as she prepares to
attack Paris for his lack of manliness; cf. 181–2 n.); Verg. Aen. 11.480
oculos deiecta decoros (identified by van Eck (1978) ad loc. as ‘a transla-
tion of this passage’). Contrast the goddess’ much bolder initial attitude at
91 with n., as well as the epithet țȣȞȫʌȘȢ/țȣȞ૵ʌȚȢ, literally ‘dog-eyed’, i.e.
‘willing to look anyone straight in the face under any circumstances’ and
thus ‘shameless’ (e.g. Il. 3.180; Od. 4.145 (both Helen speaking of her-
self); 8.319 (Hephaestus speaking of Aphrodite, after he catches her in bed
with Ares); cf. West on Hes. Op. 67). The fact that Anchises is holding
Aphrodite’s hand (155) makes the gesture possible, since it allows her to
enter the house with her eyes averted but safe from collisions with the
door-jamb, the furniture, or the like.
157–160 The approving adjective İ੡ıĲȡȦĲȠȞ (cf. 161 İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȦȞ with
n.; hDem. 285 ਕʌૅ İ੝ıĲȡȫĲȦȞ ȜİȤȑȦȞ (‘from the well-spread bed’); the
only other attestion of the adjective in early epic; Alc. fr. 283.8) captures
the focalization of someone looking at Anchises’ bed before the covers
have been lifted and disturbed. The clauses that follow, by contrast, adopt
the perspective of an individual already within the covers: the blankets are
218 Commentary
soft to the touch (ȝĮȜĮțોȚȢ), and animal-skins are heaped ‘on top of’
(੢ʌİȡșİȞ) them, rather than the texture or color of the skins being de-
scribed, and the blankets are referred to as spread beneath them. The sepa-
rate descriptions of the bedding in 157–8 ੖șȚ țĲȜ. and of the skins in 158–
60 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ țĲȜ., meanwhile, are cast as mini-histories of the goods and,
particularly in the case of the latter, of the man to whom they belong and to
whom the information provided can reasonably be traced (as it cannot be to
his visitor). The fabric had been spread over the bed even before the lovers
arrived on the scene (ʌȐȡȠȢ), and the fact that Anchises is described at the
end of the 157 with the exalted term ਙȞĮțĲȚ (dative of interest, not neces-
sarily identifying the individual who carried out the task himself) makes it
a reasonable conclusion that this was done by a slave-woman rather than
by Anchises himself; cf. below. That some anonymous woman produced
the cloth for him can also be assumed (14–15 n., 137–40 n.), but is not
specified. Anchises himself, at any rate, acquired the bear- and lion-
skins—an unexpected substitute for the sheep-skins normally used along
with blankets on beds in early epic (Il. 9.660; Od. 23.179; cf. Od. 20.3, 95,
142)—by hunting in the mountains (cf. 18 n.). The atmosphere evoked is a
mixture of the royally luxurious (cf. 165 with n., 173 with n.) and the hero-
ically rustic, on the one hand, and of the domestic and the wild, on the
other. Cf. the bed prepared for Odysseus by the rustic herdsman Eumaeus
at Od. 14.519: İ੝ȞȒȞ, ਥȞ įૅ ੑȓȦȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ĮੁȖ૵Ȟ įȑȡȝĮĲૅ ਩ȕĮȜȜİȞ (‘a bed; and
he threw sheepskins and goatskins onto it’); and in general Smith (1981a)
58–9. For bears and lions, see 70–1 n.
The M-scribe was unsure of the gender of neuter ȜȑȤȠȢ, which he took
to be masculine and for which he accordingly wrote ȜȑȤȠȞ.
ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚ ȝĮȜĮțોȚȢ: The adjective is commonly applied in early epic
to fabric (e.g. Od. 1.437; 19.234; 23.290; specifically of a ȤȜĮ૙ȞĮ at Hes.
Op. 537 ȤȜĮ૙ȞȐȞ Ĳİ ȝĮȜĮțȒȞ*), and thus by extension to beds covered with
such material (e.g. Il. 9.618; 10.75; Od. 20.58; 22.196) and perhaps to the
sleep one gets in them (e.g. Il. 24.678 ȝĮȜĮț૵Ț įİįȝȘȝȑȞȠȚ ੢ʌȞȦȚ (‘bound
in soft sleep’)). M’s įȓȞȘȚıȚ looks like an artifact of an uncial text in which
a badly written ȋȁǹǿȃ was mistaken for ȋǻǻǿȃ vel sim. and ‘corrected’
via the removal of the two offending initial letters. The initial mu on
ȝĮȜĮțોȚȢ is sufficient to render the final syllable of ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚıȚ heavy, and
there is no need for the nu-moveable added in some descendants of Ȍ
(probably a metricizing superlinear note, adopted in some but not all mem-
bers of the family).
160 is borrowed more or less direct from Od. 11.574 (quoted in the
first apparatus; see above for the variation in the second half of the verse),
where the subject is Orion (seen by Odysseus in the Underworld), who was
shot and killed by Artemis after Dawn took him as her lover (Od. 5.121–4;
cf. 218–38 n.). The echo, coming as it does at the moment when Anchises
is getting into bed with his goddess lover, is implicitly threatening, espe-
cially after 151–4, where Anchises expresses his willingness to be pierced
by Apollo’s arrows, if that is to be the price of sleeping with the woman
who has presented herself to him as Otreus’ daughter.
ȕĮȡȣĳșȩȖȖȦȞ is first attested here; subsequently at Pi. I. 6.34; Bacch.
9.9; Nic. Th. 171 ȕĮȡȣĳșȩȖȖȦȞ Ĳİ ȜİȩȞĲȦȞ* (a quotatoin of this verse?).
161 ȜİȤȑȦȞ İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȦȞ picks up ȜȑȤȠȢ İ੡ıĲȡȦĲȠȞ in 157 (where see n.),
marking the return to the main narrative line after the temporally and spa-
tially expansive explanatory digression in 157 ੖șȚ–160. The adjective
would normally refer to the careful construction of the bed-frame itself; cf.
75 (of the buildings in the farm-complex), 173 (of the roof-beam); Od.
20.150 (of chairs); [Hes.] Sc. 64 (of chariots). But in context it must mean
‘well-composed’ vel sim., the point being that Anchises’ bed-frame, blan-
kets, and animal-skins form a whole that is not just aesthetically attractive
but comfortable as well, since the characters are now sitting together on top
of or within them, rather than standing in front of the bed, as in 157. Cf.
166–7 n.
ਥʌȑȕȘıĮȞ: For this use of the verb, cf. 151–4 n.
162–165 The narrative proceeds at a strikingly slow pace in these verses
(see below on 163 and 165 in particular), as Anchises strips Aphrodite item
by item of the costume she assumed in 64–5 (where her clothing is men-
tioned first, her jewelry second, the order being reversed here as her lover
undresses her). In both passages, the glancing reference to the goddess’
flesh (ਕʌઁ ȤȡȠȩȢ; cf. 64 ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘*, 172 ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘* with n.) serves to tanta-
lize and tease: although the nominal focus of the narrative is on the jewelry
and clothing Anchises removes, it works to incite interest in the body he
sees but the Hymn’s audience never hears described. Cf. below on țĮ੿
țĮĲȑșȘțİȞ țĲȜ.; 64–5 n., 87–90 n., 168–9 n.
For the ‘staging’ of the action (i.e. the question of whether Anchises
and Aphrodite ought really to be in his bed when he removes her clothing,
rather than standing beside it), see 173–5 n.
163 = Il. 18.401 (Hephaestus describes the items he made for Thetis af-
ter she gave him shelter when Hera threw him out of heaven). The same
verse appears in adapted form at 87–8 (where see nn.), where the reference
to ʌȩȡʌĮȢ—generally taken to be cognate with ʌİȓȡȦ (‘pierce’) and
equivalent in sense to ʌİȡȩȞȘ, a clasp (fibula; the word is sometimes used
instead for a straight dress-pin) that served to hold robes together; cf. Od.
18.292–4 (Antinoos gives Penelope a ʌȑʌȜȠȢ fitted with twelve ʌİȡȩȞĮȚ …
/ ȤȡȪıİĮȚ, țȜȘ૙ıȚȞ ਥȣȖȞȐȝʌĲȠȚȢ ਕȡĮȡȣ૙ĮȚ (‘gold clasps furnished with care-
fully curved pin-tubes’)); 19.226–7 (Odysseus wore a ʌİȡȩȞȘ that featured
220 Commentary
two tubes, sc. to secure its pins, with his ȤȜĮ૙ȞĮ when he left Ithaca for
Troy))—has been removed, and the adjective ਥʌȚȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ (in place of Ĳİ
ȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ in the original) applied instead pleonastically to the ਪȜȚțĮȢ. But
at 87–8 the jewelry is all purely and pointedly decorative, whereas here the
clasps deserve mention, since they serve to keep Aphrodite’s clothing in
place; and ȖȞĮȝʌĲȐȢ anticipates Anchises’ gesture as he pinches them open
to remove her dress in 164–5. The catalogue of individual items of jewelry
in 163 is all in apposition to țȩıȝȠȞ … ĳĮİȚȞȩȞ in 162, and is thus in one
sense unnecessary. But it serves to retard the action, converting the scene
into something approaching a slow strip-tease (note ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ in 162, making
the sequential nature of what follows clear: first the jewelry, piece by
piece; then the belt; then the robes) staged for the audience’s benefit; cf.
above, and below on 165.
ȗȫȞȘȞ: A ȗȫȞȘ is worn about the stomach (cf. 255, 282); in Homer
women always put one on over another garment (Il. 14.181 (over a ਪĮȞȠȢ);
Od. 5.230–1 = 10.543–4 (over a ĳ઼ȡȠȢ)), allowing them to pull the fabric
together to produce a waist. Anchises must accordingly untie (Ȝ૨ıİ) Aph-
rodite’s ȗȫȞȘ before he can remove the rest of her clothing, the clasps that
held her robe together (sc. at her neck or shoulder) having already been
removed by implication in 163 (see above), allowing it to fall halfway—
but only halfway—off of her. Cf. Od. 11.245 / Ȝ૨ıİ į੻ ʌĮȡșİȞȓȘȞ ȗȫȞȘȞ
(‘he untied her virginal ȗȫȞȘ,’ i.e. ‘he removed her clothing when she was
still a virgin’); Alc. fr. 42.9–10 ਩Ȝ[ȣıİ įૅ] / ȗ૵ȝĮ ʌĮȡșȑȞȦ (‘he untied the
girl’s ȗȫȞȘ’), and for the language, Il. 4.215 / Ȝ૨ıİ įȑ Ƞੂ ȗȦıĲોȡĮ; 16.804 /
Ȝ૨ıİ įȑ Ƞੂ șȫȡȘțĮ.
Respect for the digamma at the beginning of İ੆ȝĮĲĮ via lack of elision
of preceding short vowels is standard in early epic (e.g. 85, 171; Il. 2.261;
5.905; Od. 4.253; h. 6.6; an exception at Hes. Op. 556). Ȍ’s ੁįȑ is therefore
correct, and M’s ਱įૅ must represent a clumsy attempt to mend the meter by
a scribe determined to eliminate the apparent hiatus.
țĮ੿ țĮĲȑșȘțİȞ ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȣ: A good choice, given that the goddess’
clothing has just been described as ‘shining’, and the floor of the hut
doubtless consists—at best (cf. 66–8 n. on İ੝ȫįİĮ ȀȪʌȡȠȞ)—of dirt; cf.
170–2 n.; Od. 1.439–40 (Eurycleia carefully folds Telemachus’ tunic when
he goes to bed, and hangs it on a peg); Hdt. i. 9. 2 (Candaules predicts that
his wife will place her clothing on a șȡȩȞȠȢ after she undresses). But the
detail also slows the narrative pace yet again, lending an air of care and
deliberation to Anchises’ actions, while directing the attention of the
Hymn’s audience in what might seem, were the text’s manipulative tenden-
cies in this regard not so consistent (cf. above), the wrong direction, as if
what matters most, when Aphrodite’s clothing is taken off, is where the
clothing is put.
ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȣ ਕȡȖȣȡȠȒȜȠȣ: a Homeric formula always used elsewhere

(see the second apparatus) in connection with seating a person. Here the
decorative flourish supplied by the adjective adds another touch of glamor
to the setting (cf. 157–60 n.), while backhandedly suggesting something
about Aphrodite’s appearance by means of a description of the object men-
tioned in her place (cf. above).
166–167 ਝȖȤȓıȘȢ: That Anchises is the subject of all the third-person
singular verbs in 162–5 does need to be specified, especially now, at the
very end of the construction. But the emphatic use of his name in enjamb-
ment at the beginning of 166 brings him abruptly to the narrative fore in
anticipation of the vigorous defense of his actions that follows.
That a mortal man is ill-advised to sleep with a goddess is taken for
granted here, but Anchises is nonetheless defended on two separate
grounds: that (1) this is what the gods willed and fated (or that it was both
the god’s will and Anchises’ fate, if one takes șİ૵Ȟ only with ੁȩĲȘĲȚ, and
assumes that Į੅ıȘ is a different force; in any case, as van Eck (1978) ad
loc. observes, in Homer the two powers ‘are coordinate. Sometimes there
is a temporal disagreement between them, but ultimately they always co-
operate’; see also Parry (1986) 259–60), and (2) he lacked a clear under-
standing of what he was doing. Cf. 145–6 n., 185–6 with n.
ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚ ʌĮȡȑȜİțĲȠ șİ઼Ț ȕȡȠĲȩȢ: Anchises and Aphrodite are al-
ready in bed together at 161, but only now are they said to have lain down
next to one another, the time in between having been occupied wth other
matters (and cf. 173–5 n.). This is all that is said of Anchises’ and Aphro-
dite’s love-making, although 168–71 can be taken to imply that it lasted all
day. The discretion (ironically picked up in Ƞ੝ ıȐĳĮ İੁįȫȢ, viz. if the igno-
rance about crucial matters in question is taken to extend to the external
audience as well) is typical of early epic, e.g. Il. 3.447–9 (Paris and Helen
go to bed together and lie down, after which the narrative returns suddenly
to Menelaus on the battlefield); 14.346–53 (Zeus takes Hera in his arms,
the earth blossoms beneath them—and in the next verse he is unconscious,
‘overcome by sleep and love-making’, which has itself been elided from
the narrative); Od. 5.226–8 (a vague one-line mention of the fact that Ca-
lypso and Odysseus make love, immediately after which the sun rises);
10.347–77 (Odysseus describes how he got into Circe’s bed, and then of-
fers a long description of the work done by the witch’s slave-women, who
are ultimately said to wash, dress, and feed him, his love-making with their
mistress now, it seems, being complete although never described); 23.295–
300 (Odysseus and Penelope go to bed, at which point the narrative turns
to the dancers in the main hall; when we return to the hero and his wife,
they are done having sex and are talking); and cf. 188–90 n., 202–4 n.,
225–7 n.; Smith (1981a) 58 ‘The moment of their physical encounter is not
222 Commentary
at all the main object of the poet’s interest but simply the hinge on which
his narrative is centered’; Bergren (1989) 24–5.
For the pointed, programmatic contrast between ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚ … șİ઼Ț and
ȕȡȠĲȩȢ, see 45–6 n. But here (as at Il. 2.821 șİ੹ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ (‘after
she slept with him, a goddess with a mortal’); likewise of Anchises and
Aphrodite) the words ‘goddess’ and ‘mortal’ also iconically capture the
sense of the line, by lying together side-by-side.
For Ƞ੝ ıȐĳĮ İੁįȫȢ, cf. Il. 15.632 Ƞ੡ ʌȦ ıȐĳĮ İੁįȫȢ /; Od. 1.202 Ƞ੡Ĳૅ
ȠੁȦȞ૵Ȟ ıȐĳĮ İੁįȫȢ /.
168–169 ਷ȝȠȢ į(੼) țĲȜ: In Homer (e.g. Il. 1.475; 7.433; 8.68; Od. 4.400;
9.58 (all ਷ȝȠȢ įૅ*)), phrases of this sort normally provide an objective
indication of time via reference to the movements of the sun or the like. In
only a handful of cases, all having to do with the end of the day, is human
behavior described instead (Il. 11.86–9 (a woodcutter breaks off work and
has dinner); Od. 12.439–40 (a man leaves the assembly-place after decid-
ing numerous court-cases); cf. Od. 13.31–4 (a weary plowman waits for
the sun to go down)), and no direct connection exists between the work
these individuals are said to have been engaged in and the action in the
main narrative line. Here, on the other hand, the reference to generic
herdsmen returning to the fold with their animals in the evening is equiva-
lent to a specific suggestion that Anchises’ fellow-cowherds will soon
come back to the farmstead (cf. 76 with n., 78–9), meaning that Aphrodite
must leave the place now or risk being discovered by them; cf. Smith
(1981a) 61–3; Radin (1988) 293–307, esp. 302. The implication is that
Aphrodite and Anchises spend the entire day making love; cf. 166–7 n.
İੁȢ Į੣ȜȚȞ: Unlike an Į੝ȜȒ, which in connection with animals means
‘fold’ or ‘pen’ (e.g. Il. 4.433 (cows); Od. 9.184 (sheep and goats)), with no
specific function attached to the place, an Į੣ȜȚȢ is simply a spot to spend
the night (cf. Od. 22.470 (birds); hHerm. 71 (cows)), and does not neces-
sarily suggest the presence of a structure. The word thus implies less about
where the animals are being driven to than about why they are being driven
there.
੅ĳȚĮ ȝોȜĮ ȞȠȝ૵Ȟ ਧȟ ਕȞșİȝȠȑȞĲȦȞ: The adjectives are closely con-
nected: the sheep are fat because their grazing-grounds are rich. ੅ĳȚĮ ȝોȜĮ
are always mentioned elsewhere in early epic in connection with ȕȩİȢ (e.g.
Il. 5.556; 8.505, 545; 9.406; Od. 11.108; 18.278; Hes. fr. 204.50), but nev-
er in the formulation / ȕȠ૨Ȣ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੅ĳȚĮ ȝોȜĮ, while ‘meadows’ (ȜİȚȝ૵ȞİȢ)
are occasionally described as ‘full of flowers’, i.e. of foliage of all sorts (Il.
2.467; Od. 12.159), but ‘grazing-grounds’ (ȞȠȝȠȓ) are not.
170–172 For ‘lively’ ਙȡ(Į), marking this as a crucial turning point in the
story, as again in 173, see 30 n.
ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੿ ȖȜȣțઃȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ਩Ȥİȣİ / ȞȒįȣȝȠȞ: The closest parallel
for the language comes from the Odyssey (see the first apparatus). But the
obvious model for the detail is the end of the story of the seduction of Zeus
at Il. 14.352–3 (cf. 58–68 n.), where the king of the gods falls asleep after
making love to Hera, and ȞȒįȣȝȠȢ ૠȊʌȞȠȢ sets off at a run to the Achaean
ships to inform Poseidon; cf. Od. 8.296 (Ares and Aphrodite).
ȞȒįȣȝȠȞ is not appreciably different in sense from ȖȜȣțȪȞ (cf. S. West
on Od. 4.793–4, and see below), while Į੝Ĳ੽ į੻ ȤȡȠ૗ ਩ȞȞȣĲȠ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ is
resumed in ਦııĮȝȑȞȘ įૅ İ੣ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘, meaning that a verse iden-
tical to 64 could easily have stood in place of 171–2. Instead, we are al-
lowed to watch the goddess dress twice, the first time with attention to the
quality of her garments, as if she was picking them up from the chair and
inspecting them, to be sure that they are still as spotless as when Anchises
took them off of her (cf. 165 with n.), the second time (in retrospect) focus-
sing on her reaction to the garments’ disposition, as if, satisfied by their
general appearance, she has now draped them about herself and is adjust-
ing her belt and dress-clasps (cf. 163–4 with nn.). The Hymn’s audience is
once more reminded explicitly of the divine body they have never heard
described (ȤȡȠ૘, ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘), the attention of the narrative focussing again
(‘perversely’) on the clothing that conceals it; cf. 162–5 n.
ȞȒįȣȝȠȞ: The sweet, pleasant sleep Aphrodite pours over Anchises is
set in pointed, anticipatory contrast (emphasized via enjambment) to the
discomfort he will inevitably experience (cf. 83 ȝȒ ȝȚȞ ĲĮȡȕȒıİȚİȞ ਥȞ
ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ) once he sees her in something approaching her proper
divine form (180–90, where note the explicit renewed reference to the
sleep from which Anchises abruptly emerges when Aphrodite speaks to
him). For ȞȒįȣȝȠȢ ੢ʌȞȠȢ, e.g. Il. 2.2; 10.91; 14.242; Od. 4.793; 12.311.
All Aphrodite has done, up to the bucolic caesura in 172, is to make
herself look the way she did when Anchises first laid eyes on her outside
his door (81–6; for the absence of any reference to her jewelry here, see
174–5 with n., 181 n.). The description į૙Į șİȐȦȞ thus really belongs with
what follows in 173–5: once Aphrodite stands up, her appearance is ab-
ruptly transformed and she becomes ‘brilliant among goddesses’, i.e. ‘bril-
liant even for a goddess’ (esp. 174–5); cf. the identical reference to Hestia
in 28* with n. For the ‘local dative’ ȤȡȠ૘ in 171, cf. Od. 14.506 țĮț੹ ȤȡȠ૗
İ੆ȝĮĲૅ ਩ȤȠȞĲĮ.
173–175 For the relationship between this passage and hDem. 188–90 ਴ įૅ
ਙȡૅ ਥʌૅ Ƞ੝įઁȞ ਩ȕȘ ʌȠıȓ, țĮȓ ૧Į ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ. ʌȜોıİȞ į੻ șȪȡĮȢ
ıȑȜĮȠȢ șİ૙ȠȚȠ. / Ĳ੽Ȟ įૅ ĮੁįȫȢ Ĳİ ıȑȕĮȢ Ĳİ ੁį੻ ȤȜȦȡઁȞ įȑȠȢ İੈȜİȞ (‘(Deme-
ter) set foot on the threshold, and she filled the doorway with a divine radi-
ance. Awe, reverence, and pale fear seized (Metaneira)’), see below (on the
unexpected use of the dative with țȪȡȦ); Introduction 3. For Aphrodite’s
224 Commentary
radiance and the terror it inspires in Anchises (182), cf. hDem. 189–90
(quoted above) with Richardson ad loc., 275–80. For the combination of
height and beauty, cf. 82 with n.
One might expect Aphrodite to put her clothes and jewelry on (171–2)
only after she gets out of bed. But dressing herself again as Otreus’ daugh-
ter does not alter how she will look to Anchises when he wakes up (cf.
178–82, esp. 181), whereas the moment she stands up (਩ıĲȘ), her head
touches the roof-beam (ȝİȜȐșȡȠȣ / ț૨ȡİ țȐȡȘ), and the fact that she is a
goddess becomes apparent. There is thus a slight, productive distortion of
proper narrative order here (facilitated by 161–7, where Anchises removes
Aphrodite’s clothing and jewelry after they enter his bed rather than be-
fore, since getting into the bed is the climax of the elaborate description of
it in 157–60).
For ‘lively’ ਙȡĮ, see 30 n., 170–2 n.
The mention of the țȜȚıȓȘȚ makes it explicit that Aphrodite is no long-
er in bed (cf. above), and brings the structure explicitly back into the narra-
tive just in time to contextualize the reference to the roof-beam that fol-
lows. İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣ adds a bit of grandeur —borrowed from Aphrodite’s
țȐȡȘ, to which any aesthetic approbation expressed here ought properly to
belong—to the setting, while making it clear that even if this is only a
cowherd’s hut or lean-to, it is as impressive as a hut or lean-to can be,
meaning that it no small matter that Aphrodite’s head reaches its ceiling.
Cf. 157–60 n.; Knox (1971) 27–31, esp. 31 ‘When terms appropriate to a
house or palace are used to any appreciable extent of a țȜȚıȓȘ, this is done
for special effect.’ The hiatus between țȜȚıȓȘȚ and İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣ is mitigated
by the caesura, but the language is nonetheless probably modeled on the
less problematic 75 țȜȚıȓĮȢ İ੝ʌȠȚȒĲȠȣȢ (which similarly straddles the fem-
inine caesura).
ț૨ȡİ: The confusion in the Ȍ-family MSS can be traced to a badly
written miniscule kappa in ȍ (or a manuscript intermediary between ȍ and
Ȍ), which the M-scribe deciphered correctly but the Ȍ-scribe took for an
eta, producing Ș੝ȡİ/Ș੣ȡİ (bp). The a-scribe in turn took the eta for a beta
(also very similar in minuscule), while the f-scribe attempted to correct the
text by writing ਸ਼ȡİ/ਸȡİ. țȪȡȦ consistently takes the dative rather than the
genitive in early epic, except here and at hDem. 188–9 (quoted above).
For Aphrodite’s archetypal țȐȜȜȠȢ, e.g. Il. 9.389; Od. 18.192–4 (where
‘beauty’ is treated as a divine cosmetic that can be applied to a mortal
woman’s face); Hes. Th. 194 ~ h. 6.1. For the light produced during divine
epiphanies, cf. Il. 4.75–80; hAp. 442–5; Richardson on hDem. 189.
ȠੈȩȞ Ĳૅ ਥıĲ઀Ȟ țĲȜ is presented not as a partisan assessment of the quali-
ty of Aphrodite’s beauty, but as the poet’s own assertion of fact that estab-
lishes explicitly (contrast 173–4) that the goddess assumes her full conven-
tional appearance as ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ (cf. 6 ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ*

with n.), i.e. as the goddess of contemporary cult, on the one hand, and of
the broader poetic and artistic imagination (esp. Cypr. fr. 5, pp. 47–8 Bern-
abé: Aphrodite, the nymphs and the Graces weave flowers into ‘fragrant
garlands’ and place them on their heads), on the other.
Given that M’s ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ is attested in the same sedes at h. 6.18,
where the emphasis is again on the goddess’ extraordinary beauty, and in a
narrative rather than a descriptive context (as in 6), there is no reason to
prefer Ȍ’s less evocative ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ. For the adjective, cf. Sol. fr. 19.4
West2 ȀȪʌȡȚȢ ੁȠıĲȑĳĮȞȠȢ; Thgn. 1304 = 1332 ~ 1382/3 ȀȣʌȡȠȖİȞȠ૨Ȣ …
ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ; Olson on Ar. Ach. 637 (on garlands of violets generally); and
see 58–68 n. (on the smell of the Olympian gods).
176–186 The action in 176–9 is artfully coordinated with that in 180–6 in a
way that keeps the narrator from having to cut repeatedly back and forth
between the characters, as a more strictly naturalistic presentation-style
would have required: Aphrodite tells Anchises to wake up in 176–7, and
although he does so only in 180, he is nonetheless able in 184–6 to answer
the question (in the form of an order) she addressed to him in 178–9, since
his response has been remotivated in the meantime in 181–3, as a reaction
to the sight of her rather than to her words.
176–180 ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ Ĳૅ ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİȞ at the beginning of 176 is borrowed more
or less direct from Il. 10.138, where Nestor wakes Odysseus up for a meet-
ing that leads to the night-time mission in which Dolon is captured and
killed; 177 recalls Il. 10.159 ਩ȖȡİȠ, ȉȣįȑȠȢ ȣੂȑā Ĳȓ ʌȐȞȞȣȤȠȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ਕȦĲİ૙Ȣ;
(‘Wake up, son of Tydeus! Why do you lie asleep all night long?’), where
the old man rouses Diomedes for the same purpose; and 180 adapts Il.
10.162 ੮Ȣ ĳȐșૅā ੔ įૅ ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȚȠ ȝȐȜĮ țȡĮȚʌȞ૵Ȣ ਕȞȩȡȠȣıİ (‘Thus he spoke;
and the other man speedily arose from sleep’), where Diomedes responds
to Nestor’s summons by getting up. But ੕ȡıİȠ, ǻĮȡįĮȞȓįȘ at the begin-
ning of 177 can also be understood as a reworking of Iris’ summons to
Achilleus, where she urges him to act to prevent Hector from capturing
Patroclus’ corpse, at Il. 18.170 ੕ȡıİȠ, ȆȘȜİȓįȘ* (‘Wake up, son of Pele-
us!’), although with a vocative elsewhere consistently used of Priam (* at
Il. 3.303; 24.171, 354, 629, 631), while 179 ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȩȘıĮȢ (~ Il.
24.294 = 312; cf. 144) recalls the Trojan king’s own night-time journey
(similarly sparked by a visit from Iris) to recover Hector’s body from
Achilleus. The juxtaposition of intertexts thus once again evokes all the
interconnected tragedies of the Trojan War at a crucial moment in the
Hymn’s main narrative line (cf. 111–12 n., 196–9 n.). The second half of
180, on the other hand, evokes Od. 14.485 ੒ įૅ ਙȡૅ ਥȝȝĮʌȑȦȢ ਫ਼ʌȐțȠȣıİ /
(from one of the stranger’s lying tales to Eumaeus, telling how he once
226 Commentary
woke Odysseus up at Troy), suggesting that ȞȒȖȡİĲȠȞ in 177 recalls Odys-

seus’ voyage back to Ithaca from Scheria at Od. 13.74, 80 (the only other
appearances of the adjective in early epic), bringing out a residual hopeful
element in the passage as well (cf. 109 with n., 193–5 n.). In any case,
178–9 might easily be understood as inter alia a self-conscious question
directed to the Hymn’s external audience (almost ‘Does this line/passage
sound the same as when you first laid eyes on it?’; cf. 111 İ੅ ʌȠȣ ਕțȠȪİȚȢ
with n.).
ਥȟ ੢ʌȞȠȣ Ĳૅ ਕȞȑȖİȚȡİȞ: A wealth of traditional language was avail-
able, had the poet wished to use the first half of this verse to characterize
the speech in 177–9 as intended to be kind or comforting (e.g. Il. 1.361 =
Od. 4.610 (etc.) ȤİȚȡȓ Ĳȑ ȝȚȞ țĮĲȑȡİȟİȞ ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ
(‘he/she stroked his/her hand, and spoke a word and called him/her by
name’); Il. 6.253 = Od. 2.302 (etc.) ਩Ȟ Ĳૅ ਙȡĮ Ƞੂ ĳ૨ ȤİȚȡ੿ ਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ
ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ (‘he/she took his/her hand, and (etc.)’). What is offered is instead
a proleptic summary of the effect of 177 (on which, see below).
਩ʌȠȢ Ĳૅ ਩ĳĮĲૅ ਩ț Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȗİȞ: cf. 143–4* n.
ǻĮȡįĮȞȓįȘ helps prepare for the stories of Ganymede and Tithonus in
200–38, by abruptly associating Anchises—whose ancestry has not been
mentioned in the poem up to this point—with the Trojan royal house.
Ĳȓ Ȟȣ ȞȒȖȡİĲȠȞ ੢ʌȞȠȞ ੁĮȪİȚȢ;: A mocking question, both because Aph-
rodite herself is responsible for Anchises being asleep (answering Ĳȓ;) and
because he wakes up the moment she speaks (180) (meaning that his sleep
is not ȞȒȖȡİĲȠȢ at all). For rebukes as typical of waking-scenes, cf. Rich-
ardson on Il. 23.69–92.
țĮ੿ ĳȡȐıĮȚ țĲȜ is again mocking, because the answer to the question
can only be ‘No’, and arguably cruel, since Aphrodite demands that An-
chises acknowledge that his own previous understanding of the situation—
into which she led him, as he immediately protests (185–6; cf. 167 with
n.)—was incorrect, and seemingly disastrously so. At 83, the goddess dis-
guises herself as an unmarried girl ȝȒ ȝȚȞ ĲĮȡȕȒıİȚİȞ ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ
ȞȠȒıĮȢ; the echo of that verse in the second half of 178 serves as a remind-
er that the appropriate response for Anchises, when he realizes who Otre-
us’ daughter really is, will be abject terror (182).
Elsewhere in early epic (e.g. Il. 4.267; 23.324; Od. 4.13, 159; Hes. Th.
188, 425; hAp. 493; hHerm. 487; [Hes.] Sc. 127), the consonants at the
beginning of ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ always make position.
Ƞ੆ȘȞ įȒ: cf. Denniston (1954) 220–1 (wrongly identifying this as an
exceptional case in which a ‘note of disparagement, irony, or contempt’ is
absent). M’s nonsensical Ƞ੅țȠȚ (for Ƞ੆ȘȞ) probably represents a misread
ligature.
181–182 181 reworks Il. 3.396–7 țĮȓ ૧ૅ ੪Ȣ Ƞ੣Ȟ ਥȞȩȘıİ șİ઼Ȣ

ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮ įİȚȡȒȞ / ıĲȒșİȐ șૅ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ țĮ੿ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ ȝĮȡȝĮȓȡȠȞĲĮ
(‘and when she noticed the goddess’ lovely neck, luscious breasts, and
sparkling eyes’; Helen recognizes Aphrodite, who has come in disguise to
lead her to Paris’ bed), while 182 recalls both Il. 3.427 / ੕ııİ ʌȐȜȚȞ
țȜȓȞĮıĮ (‘turning her eyes backward’; Helen’s response to Paris, after
Aphrodite brings him into her presence) and Od. 16.179 ĲĮȡȕȒıĮȢ įૅ
ਦĲȑȡȦıİ ȕȐȜૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ, ȝ੽ șİઁȢ İ੅Ș (‘he turned his eyes aside in terror, in
case the other man was a god’; Telemachus’ reaction when he sees his
disguised father made suddenly larger and handsomer, a scene quoted also
at 109, where see n.).
੪Ȣ į੻ ੅įİȞ țĲȜ: i.e. ‘when he saw how beautiful her eyes and neck
were’, and thus realized that she did not, in fact (cf. 178–9), look as she did
when he first saw her. The absence of any reference to Aphrodite’s breasts
renders the description less overtly sexualized than the one at Il. 3.396–7
(quoted above; cf. 87–90 n.). What Anchises sees is simply the blindingly
brilliant beauty of a divine face (cf. 174 țȐȜȜȠȢ į੻ ʌĮȡİȚȐȦȞ ਕʌȑȜĮȝʌİȞ
with n.), which is to say that the adjective țĮȜ(Ȑ) serves to justify the terror
(ĲȐȡȕȘıİȞ) with which he responds. But although the poet specifies that
the beautiful neck and eyes that Anchises sees belong to Aphrodite, An-
chises himself never calls the goddess by name (185 șİȐ) and claims to
have recognized initially only that she was ‘a deity’ (186 ਩ȖȞȦȞ ੪Ȣ șİઁȢ
਷ıșĮ with n.). Nor does the goddess name herself until 287, at the end of
the long speech that occupies most of the rest of the Hymn, where this is
easily understood as intended as a final, stunning revelation. Cf. de Jong
(1989) 17–18. For ੪Ȣ į੻ ੅įİȞ, cf. Il. 4.151*; 5.846*. M’s įૅ İੇįİ (which
ignores the verb’s initial digamma, respected at e.g. 185) merely represents
a combination of a different division of the letters and a misguided deci-
sion to drop the nu-moveable. For ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țȐȜૅ, cf. 156 ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ with
n.; Il. 23.66*.
੕ııİ ʌĮȡĮțȜȚįઁȞ ਩ĲȡĮʌİȞ ਙȜȜȘȚ is in the first instance a gesture of
ĮੁįȫȢ (~ ‘respect’; cf. 21 n.), as at Il. 9.503 and especially Od. 16.179
(quoted above); cf. 91 n., 155–6 n. But Aphrodite’s divine face is also
simply too bright to look at. ʌĮȡĮțȜȚįȩȞ appears * at Od. 3.348 = 17.139.
183–184 ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ … ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ țĮȜ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ: The gesture is left un-
glossed, but—at least on the punctuation adopted here, with a full stop
after 182—is best understood as an initial physical expression of Anchises’
willingness to engage in the process of groveling whose verbal form is
characterized in 184 as ȜȚııȩȝİȞȠȢ (cf. 187 ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ with n.), and thus
as driven by a combination of all the motives apparent in 182 (where see
n.): fear (sc. of having offended the divinity), doubtless mixed with grief
(cf. Od. 8.85 (quoted in the first apparatus), probably the model for
228 Commentary
ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ țĮȜ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ); ĮੁįȫȢ (patently the proper response, now that
Anchises knows that his visitor is a goddess, with the normal physical
turning-away from the object or individual shown ‘respect’ (182) ex-
pressed in an exaggerated form, as if to make up for a failure to do so
properly before; cf. 184–5 n.); and a desire to find a more effective refuge
from the sheer overpowering brilliance of the divine face.
ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ: i.e. in the bedclothes (158 with n.).
The hiatus between ȤȜĮȓȞȘȚ and ਥțĮȜȪȥĮĲȠ is mitigated by caesura; an
anonymous early editor attempted to deal with the matter by inserting a
superfluous Ĳૅ (ȍ).
țĮȜ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ: The adjective can be understood as focalized by Aph-
rodite (cf. 241–3), allowing the pathos evoked—‘Such a beautiful face, yet
so sad and despairing!’—to prefigure her abrupt change of attitude in 191–
5 (contrast 175–9 with nn.), where see nn.
184 comes direct from Odyssey 22 (see the first apparatus, and cf. 187
n.), where a series of suppliants beg Odysseus and Telemachus—in two
out of three cases, successfully—to spare their lives in the aftermath of the
general slaughter of the Suitors. The Homeric context serves both to bring
out Anchises’ desperation (cf. 188–90) and to raise the possibility that
Aphrodite will choose to show him mercy, while acknowledging that she
may choose to act otherwise.
185–186 A strikingly resourceful response to the order in 178–9 (note the
echo of 179 ȝİ Ĳઁ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ ਥȞ ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ ȞȩȘıĮȢ in ıૅ ੪Ȣ Ĳ੹ ʌȡ૵ĲĮ … ੅įȠȞ
ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ), the expected response to which is an admission that ‘No,
you do not look like the person I first took you for.’ Anchises insists in-
stead that he initially recognized Aphrodite’s divinity (cf. 92–106, esp. 92–
9), meaning that she is exactly who he thought she was then, an irony cap-
tured verbally in the echo of 185 șİȐ in 186 șİઁȢ ਷ıșĮ. But she lied to him
(sc. and made him believe that she was mortal), and the obvious implica-
tion is that he ought not to be punished for anything he did on that basis;
for similarly exculpatory remarks by the narrator (rather than his charac-
ter), cf. 145–6 with n., 166–7 with n. None of this means that Anchises’
initial speech to his beautiful visitor was necessarily sincere (cf. 91–106
n.), and Anchises’ insistence that it was, points to his desperation here.
In both of the entreaties to Odysseus introduced by verses identical to
184 (Od. 22.311 = 343; Medon’s plea to Telemachus at Od. 22.361–70 is
of a different character), the request for mercy comes first (Od. 22.312 =
344 ȖȠȣȞȠ૨ȝĮȓ ıૅ, ૅȅįȣıİ૨ā ıઃ įȑ ȝૅ Į੅įİȠ țĮȓ ȝૅ ਥȜȑȘıȠȞ; (‘I’m on my
knees before you, Odysseus! Treat me with ĮੁįȫȢ and show me mercy!’);
cf. 187–90), and the evidence of innocence or merit on which it is based
follows (Od. 22.313–19, 345–53). But Anchises’ excuse for his behavior is
properly a response to 178–9, and the order of the rhetorical elements has
accordingly been reversed, allowing Aphrodite in 192–5 to seamlessly take

up the question of whether her lover has anything to fear from her or the
other Olympians, rather than dealing with the problem of whether he meant
what he said in his initial speech to her, or should have been more cautious
about trying to get her into bed, or the like.
Į੝ĲȓțĮ is to be taken with ਩ȖȞȦȞ, while Ĳ੹ ʌȡ૵ĲĮ is to be taken with
੅įȠȞ. ı(İ) is governed in the first instance by ਩ȖȞȦȞ, in prolepis with ੪Ȣ
șİઁȢ ਷ıșĮ (‘I recognized you, that you were a god’, i.e. ‘I recognized that
you were a god’), but is also the object of ੅įȠȞ.
șİȐ: For the question of whether Anchises is supposed to be under-
stood as recognizing Aphrodite (sc. as Aphrodite herself, rather than as a
generic female deity), see 181–2 n. For the generic difficulty of recogniz-
ing gods, cf. hDem. 111 with Richardson ad loc. (where the cross-reference
should be to 93 n.).
਩ȖȞȦȞ ੪Ȣ șİઁȢ ਷ıșĮ appears to be modeled on Il. 22.9–10 Į੝ĲઁȢ
șȞȘĲઁȢ ਥઅȞ șİઁȞ ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ; Ƞ੝įȑ ȞȪ ʌȫ ȝİ / ਩ȖȞȦȢ ੪Ȣ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚ (‘Why are
you chasing me,), when you yourself are mortal, whereas I am an immortal
god? You failed entirely to recognize that I am a god!’; Apollo taunts
Achilleus for failing to realize that he has not been chasing Agenor; Hec-
tor’s death follows immediately thereafter)), while ȞȘȝİȡĲ੻Ȣ ਩İȚʌİȢ is
drawn from Il. 3.204 (the Teichoskopia). For a similar juxtaposition of
Homeric exemplars and its implications, see 111–12 n.
ıઃ įૅ Ƞ੝ ȞȘȝİȡĲ੻Ȣ ਩İȚʌİȢ: cf. also Od. 2.251 ıઃ įૅ Ƞ੝ țĮĲ੹ ȝȠ૙ȡĮȞ
਩İȚʌİȢ (Leiocratus’ rebuke of Mentor).
187–189 187 ~ 131 (where see initial n.).
ʌȡઁȢ ǽȘȞઁȢ ȖȠȣȞȐȗȠȝĮȚ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ, / ȝȒ ȝİ țĲȜ: By invoking Zeus as
ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠȢ, Anchises presents him in his capacity as master of the universe,
whose will—collapsed into the request being made in his name—ought to
be respected; cf. 23 with n., 191 with n. For the collocation of the name
and the epithet in the genitive (but with ǽȘȞȩȢ in a different sedes), cf. Hes.
Op. 483, 661; frr. 43a.52; 303.2. This is the first attested example of ʌȡȩȢ +
genitive followed by an aorist imperative of vehement entreaty: ‘Whenever
the object of the verb is the first personal pronoun, the aorist subjunctive is
exclusively used. There are over thirty examples of this rule, and not one
exception’ (Scott (1907) 324).
ȗ૵ȞĲૅ ਕȝİȞȘȞȩȞ: ‘alive but incapacitated’; cf. Il. 5.887 (condemned
by van Leeuwen, followed by West (1998), and perhaps modeled on this
verse; see Kirk ad loc.) ਵ țİ ȗઅȢ ਕȝİȞȘȞઁȢ ਩Į ȤĮȜțȠ૙Ƞ ĲȣʌોȚıȚȞ (‘or I
would have been alive but incapacitated by the blows from bronze weap-
ons’). The Odyssey-poet (10.521, 536; 11.29, 49) repeatedly refers to the
dead as ȞİțȪȦȞ ਕȝİȞȘȞ੹ țȐȡȘȞĮ (‘strengthless heads of the dead’), and
sharpening the underlying point—that a man can accept that he will be
230 Commentary
ਕȝİȞȘȞȩȢ after he is dead, but not while he is alive—must be part of the

reason for the otherwise seemingly over-elaborate ਥȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚȞ … /
ȞĮȓİȚȞ. But the latter phrase also helps bring out the fundamentally social
character of Anchises’ anxiety: he does not want to be surrounded by oth-
ers who are strong and undamaged, while he is not. (van der Ben (1986) 21
takes ਥȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚȞ … / ȞĮȓİȚȞ as instead a back-handed request that
Aphrodite make Anchises immortal. But this would be an extraordinarily
bold request from a character begging for mercy (189), and Aphrodite
responds by reassuring her lover that he has nothing to fear from the
Olympian gods (193–5), rather than by replying to what she patently does
not see as a request for anything other than to be left undamaged.)
The phrase ਕȜȜૅ ਥȜȑĮȚȡ(İ) appears in similar contexts at Od. 5.450
(Odysseus to the river he hopes will give him shelter) / ਕȜȜૅ ਥȜȑĮȚȡİ; 6.175
(Odysseus to Nausicaa) / ਕȜȜ੹ … ਥȜȑĮȚȡİ; cf. Il. 6.431 (Andromache to
Hector) / ਕȜȜૅ ਙȖİ Ȟ૨Ȟ ਥȜȑĮȚȡİ.
ȕȚȠșȐȜȝȚȠȢ is a hapax legomenon, but is patently formed from ȕȓȠȢ +
șȐȜȜȦ, and must mean ‘vigorous’ vel sim.; cf. 104 șĮȜİȡઁȞ ȖȩȞȠȞ with n.;
Pi. O. 7.11 ȗȦșȐȜȝȚȠȢ. The fact that Anchises insists that the loss of
strength (ȝȑȞȠȢ; cf. ਕȝİȞȘȞȩȞ in 188) and vigor he fears is conventionally
understood (note the generalizing ੖Ȣ Ĳİ) to be a consequence of sleeping
with goddesses suggests that sexual potency is in question, particularly
since the disability seem only to afflict men; see in general Giacomelli
(1980) 1–19, esp. 16–19; Clay (1989) 182–3; Tsomis (2004) 15–29, esp.
23, 26–8 (responding to Giacomelli). That Anchises fails to say this open-
ly—to the frustration of modern readers—can be understood as another
symptom of the Hymn’s general reticence in such matters; cf. 166–7 n. But
Aphrodite’s response in 196–7 implies that what really worries—or ought
to worry—Anchises in not the possibility of impotence per se, but the risk
that he will then be left without descendants (cf. 104–6 with nn. for An-
chises’ desire for children), which is accordingly the point on which she
offers him reassurance.
șİĮ૙Ȣ … ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ: i.e. rather than with țĮĲĮșȞȘĲોȚıȚ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ (cf.
39 with n., 50), with the—in one sense unnecessary—adjective serving to
bring out the point at issue. The use of the plural effectively conflates the
situation of an individual man who sleeps with a goddess, with the larger
and better understood one of ‘men who sleep with goddesses’.
191–192 ~ 107–8, where see nn.
ǻȚઁȢ șȣȖȐĲȘȡ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ: see 81*–3 n.
țȪįȚıĲİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ is an honorific form of address. But
the flattery is less problematic here than in 108, since even if Anchises is
not yet famous, he will soon be, as a result of the son Aphrodite will bear
him (196–7).
193–195 Aphrodite begins with a one-word command (șȐȡıİȚ), which she

first expands and clarifies, by converting it into a negative form (ȝȘį੻ …
įİȓįȚșȚ) that both takes account of what Anchises is feeling at the moment
(note ıોȚıȚ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİıȓ), as opposed to how he should feel or behave in the
future, and incorporates her own assessment of the situation (note the
judgmental ȜȓȘȞ), but without acknowledging what he is afraid of. She then
recasts this order as a negative statement of fact (Ƞ੝ … ĲȠȓ ĲȚ įȑȠȢ ʌĮșȑİȚȞ
țĮțȩȞ ~ ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ıોȚıȚ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ įİȓįȚșȚ) that nonetheless serves to justify
(ȖȐȡ) it, by insisting on the absence of the divine hostility he fears, expand-
ing this imaginary hostility to include the gods generally, not just herself
(Ƞ੝ … ਥȟ ਥȝȑșİȞ Ȗİ / Ƞ੝įૅ ਙȜȜȦȞ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ). The second half of 195, final-
ly, converts this negative assertion into a positive ground for the positive
order issued at the beginning of 193: not that Anchises is innocent of
wrong-doing, as he—seconded by the narrator—insists (185–6 with n.),
but simply that the gods (sc. as a group) are fond of him (ਥʌİ੿ ਷ ĳȓȜȠȢ ਥıı੿
șİȠ૙ıȚȞ). Aphrodite has lied before in the Hymn (109–42) and perhaps does
so again (286–8 with n.). But regardless of how one evaluates her final
claim here, about the affection Zeus and the other Olympians feel for her
mortal lover, no groundwork has been laid for it up to this point in the
poem, and Anchises has not obviously been anything more than Zeus’
mortal cat’s-paw (45–55).
At a moment of enormous narrative tension, as Anchises’ fate rests in
the hands of a seemingly hostile and offended goddess (cf. 177–9 with
nn.), these verses offer a series of reassuring echoes from the Odyssey: 193
~ Od. 4.825 (an eidôlon sent by Athena informs Penelope that Telemachus
will make his way home safely); 194 is modeled on Od. 5.347 Ƞ੝įȑ Ĳȓ ĲȠȚ
ʌĮșȑİȚȞ įȑȠȢ Ƞ੝įૅ ਕʌȠȜȑıșĮȚ (‘You need have no fear of suffering or
death’; Ino tells Odysseus that her scarf will get him safe to land on Sche-
ria); and 195 ĳȓȜȠȢ ਥıı੿ șİȠ૙ıȚ recalls Od. 24.92 ĳȓȜȠȢ ਷ıșĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ (‘The
gods were well-disposed to you’; after the death of the Suitors, Agamem-
non congratulates Achilleus in the Underworld, contrasting his interlocu-
tor’s happy fate with his own miserable homecoming), and perhaps also Il.
20.347–8 ਷ ૧Į țĮ੿ ǹੁȞİȓĮȢ ĳȓȜȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ / ਷İȞ (‘The immortal
gods were certainly well-disposed to Aeneas!’; Achilleus, discovering that
Anchises’ son Aeneas has vanished from before his eyes). If there is in
addition a reference in 195 to Od. 9.276 Ƞ੝į੻ șİ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ, ਥʌİ੿ ਷ ʌȠȜઃ
ĳȑȡĲİȡȠȓ İੁȝİȞ (‘(Nor do we care) about the blessed gods, since we are far
more powerful’; the Cyclops’ boast), it either obliquely recalls Odysseus’
greatest triumph (and thus the fact that Polyphemus was wrong) or repre-
sents a strikingly subversive message, whose implications impinge on the
meaning of the Hymn as a whole.
232 Commentary
șȐȡıİȚ, ȝȘį੻ … įİȓįȚșȚ: For șȐȡıȠȢ as the opposite of įȑȠȢ, cf. Od.
6.140.
ĲȠȓ ĲȚ: The words must have been written one above the other in ȍ and
(following ȍ) in Ȍ, one of them having fallen out of the text earlier via
haplography. The Ĭ-scribe included both in the text in the proper order; the
M-scribe included both, but in the wrong order (ĲȚ ĲȠȓ); and the p-scribe
chose between them (ĲȚ).
਷ ĳȓȜȠȢ ਥıı੿ șİȠ૙ıȚ: cf. 196–9 n. on 199 ਪȞİțĮ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ
਩ȝʌİıȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ; Il. 20.347–8 (quoted in 193–5 n.); Od. 24.92 (quoted in
193–5 n.); Hes. fr. 25.38 ĳȓȜȠȢ įૅ ਷Ȟ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ.
196–200 See 200–80 n.
196–199 Although Aphrodite tells Anchises that he will have a son, this is
presented only as evidence of the favor in which the gods hold him (194–
5), and might still be taken as an oblique way of assuring him that his sex-
ual vitality will be unaffected by having slept with her (cf. 189–90 with n.).
Only at 255, after a long digression on the history of relationships between
beautiful young Trojan men and the gods, and of her own (lack of) further
plans for him, does Aphrodite expressly inform Anchises that she will be
his child’s mother.
ĳȓȜȠȢ echoes 195, but now with Anchises as focalizer (cf. de Jong
(1989) 23): just as Anchises himself is ‘dear to the gods’, so Anchises’ son
will be to him.
੔Ȣ ਥȞ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ țĲȜ is a reworking of Il. 20.307–8 Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ ǹੁȞİȓĮȠ
ȕȓȘ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȞȐȟİȚ / țĮ੿ ʌĮȓįȦȞ ʌĮ૙įİȢ, ĲȠȓ țİȞ ȝİĲȩʌȚıșİ ȖȑȞȦȞĲĮȚ,
modified to take account of the fact that—whatever the Iliad-poet may
have intended to communicate (cf. Janko (1982) 158; Edwards on Il.
20.75–155)—Aeneas’ descendants did not continue to rule in Troy, to
whose final disaster the Hymn repeatedly if obliquely refers (cf. 111–12 n.,
176–80 n.), although his generally acknowledged escape from the confla-
gration meant that his branch of the royal family survived elsewhere. See
Introduction 1.
ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ: An obscure form, but the context (cf. 196 ਕȞȐȟİȚ) guar-
antees that it is a future of some sort, presumably invented by the poet; cf.
127 Ĳİțİ૙ıșĮȚ with n.; Chantraine (1935) 131–2; Janko (1982) 157.
Baumeister’s ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲİȢ (printed by West (2003)) substitutes obscurius
for obscurum, and is thus no improvement.
ĮੁȞઁȞ / … ਙȤȠȢ is a standard Homeric collocation (e.g. Il. 4.169; 8.124;
15.208; 16.55, 508; 17.83; Od. 16.87; 18.274), but is attested nowhere else
in this sedes. For a more complete and complicated explanation of Aphro-
dite’s ਙȤȠȢ, see 243–55 with n.
The aorist ਩ıȤİȞ shows that the action described in Ĳ૵Ț į੻ țĮ੿ țĲȜ. be-
longs not in the present but in the future, after Anchises’ child is born, at
which point it will be given a name that suits Aphrodite by commenting on
the character of her relationship with its father (although see above on the
ambiguity of her promise to Anchises at this point in the narrative). ĮੁȞȩȞ
thus represents Aphrodite’s own anticipated eventual characterization of
the grief she already feels (see above). For similar play on Aeneas’ name,
cf. Il. 13.481–2 įİȓįȚĮ įૅ ĮੁȞ૵Ȣ / ǹੁȞİȓĮȞ. For the motif of the significant
name generally, e.g. Od. 19.407–9 ʌȠȜȜȠ૙ıȚȞ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥȖȫ Ȗİ ੑįȣııȐȝİȞȠȢ Ĳȩįૅ
ੂțȐȞȦ, / … / Ĳ૵Ț įૅ ૅȅįȣıİઃȢ ੕ȞȠȝૅ ਩ıĲȦ ਥʌȫȞȣȝȠȞ; Hes. fr. 235.2 (of
Ileus, eponym of Ilium) țĮȓ Ƞੂ ĲȠ૨Ĳૅ ੑȞȩȝȘȞૅ ੕ȞȠȝૅ ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ, Ƞ੢ȞİțĮ
ȞȪȝĳȘȞ / İਫ਼ȡȩȝİȞȠȢ ੆ȜİȦȞ ȝȓȤșȘ ਥȡĮĲોȚ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ; Cypr. fr. 29.4–5, p. 60
Bernabé ਡȞȚȠȞ ਥțȐȜİıİ įȚ੹ Ĳઁ ਕȞȚĮșોȞĮȚ Į੝Ĳ੽Ȟ įȚૅ Į੝ĲȩȞ; Dodds on E. Ba.
367; and cf. 200–1 n. For the use of Ƞ੢ȞİțĮ in such contexts, cf. West on
Th. 144–5 (where the reference to ‘[Th.] 196’ should be to 197 (quoted
below)). Here the explanation is taken one logical step further back, by
means of the ਪȞİțĮ-clause. The name ǹੁȞİȓĮȢ in fact appears to be of non-
Greek origin (LfgrE s.v. E), and the etymology proposed here is of a typi-
cally naive early epic variety; cf. esp. Hes. Th. 195–8 (Aphrodite got her
name Ƞ੢Ȟİțૅ ਥȞ ਕĳȡ૵Ț / șȡȑĳșȘ (‘because she was nourished in the aph-
ros/foam’)); fr. 235.
The expression ਩ıȤİȞ ਙȤȠȢ is attested elsewhere in early epic only at
Merop. fr. 2.4, p. 133 Bernabé [ਙ]ȤȠȢ ਩ıȤİșİȞ ૽ǾҕȡҕĮҕțȜ[ોĮ] (but cf. 207
ʌȑȞșȠȢ … ਩Ȥİ, 225 ਩ȤİȞ ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ; LfgrE s. ਩ȤȦ B I 1aȕ cc ĮĮ (p.
844)), while ਪȞİțĮ/İ੆ȞİțĮ is used elsewhere as a conjunction (rather than
as a preposition with the genitive, as at 248; cf. Ƞ੢ȞİțĮ = Ƞ੤ ਪȞİțĮ in 198)
only at Hes. fr. 180.10 ]İ੆Ȟİțૅ ਙȡૅ İ੅įİȚ ਥțĮȓȞȣĲȠ [ĳ૨ȜĮ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ].
ਪȞİțĮ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝʌİıȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ reworks Il. 18.85 (Achilleus
to Thetis, describing how Zeus and the other Olympians contrived her
wedding to Peleus) ਵȝĮĲȚ Ĳ૵Ț ੖Ĳİ ı੻ ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝȕĮȜȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ. Not
only does Aphrodite present herself as a victim of circumstances beyond
her control, therefore, but if ਥȝʌȓʌĲȦ is understood as a functional passive
of ਥȝȕȐȜȜȦ, the implication is that she now realizes that another god is
responsible for what has happened to her—and to Anchises, lending further
point to ਥʌİ੿ ਷ ĳȓȜȠȢ ਥıı੿ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ in 195. Cf. Lenz (1975) 127–31; Clay
(1989) 184.
This is Aphrodite’s last reference to Aeneas until 255, and 256–91 (or
247–91) could easily follow more or less directly after 199, were the Hymn
not at least as interested in Anchises and his fate as it is in his son.
200–280 unpack the assertions in 196–200 in reverse (ring-composition)
order: 200–38 (esp. 200–1) tell why Aphrodite slept with Anchises (cf. 199
ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ ਩ȝʌİıȠȞ İ੝ȞોȚ), with comparative reference to the stories
234 Commentary
of two other attractive young Trojan men who drew divine attention (intri-
guingly, Aphrodite makes no mention of her own presumed agency in
either situation); 239–54 offer two separate if compatible explanations of
why what she has done—or what has happened to her (cf. 199 with n.)—
causes her grief (cf. 198–9 ȝૅ ĮੁȞȩȞ / ਩ıȤİȞ ਙȤȠȢ); and 255–80 (esp.
255–7, 273–80) discuss the birth of Aeneas (cf. 196 / ıȠ੿ įૅ ਩ıĲĮȚ ĳȓȜȠȢ
ȣੂȩȢ) and how he will make his way to Troy (cf. 196 ੔Ȣ ਥȞ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ
ਕȞȐȟİȚ /).
200–201 obliquely explain how it is that Aphrodite came to sleep with a
mortal creature (cf. 199 ȕȡȠĲȠ૨ ਕȞȑȡȠȢ): his family produces extraordi-
narily handsome men. (For Aphrodite’s physical attraction to Anchises, cf.
53–7, 241–3.) Cf. the description of Anchises’ great-uncle Ganymede
(202–17 with nn.) at Il. 20.233: ੔Ȣ į੽ țȐȜȜȚıĲȠȢ ȖȑȞİĲȠ șȞȘĲ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (‘who was in fact the handsomest of human beings’). But the
reference to humans specifically as ‘subject to death’ (țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ; cf. 3 with n.) simultaneously expresses the gist of Aphrodite’s
dilemma, as well as one of the central organizing ideas of the Hymn as a
whole: because men die but the gods do not, the gap between the two
groups is—almost (cf. 202–17, esp. 214), and certainly now—
unbridgeable. İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ĳȣȒȞ Ĳİ (accusative of respect with ਕȖȤȓșİȠȚ) at the
end of 201 thus comes as a final, knowing qualifier, ‘at least as far as İੇįȠȢ
and ĳȣȒ go’.
ਕȖȤȓșİȠȚ: used of the Phaeacians at Od. 5.35 = 19.279, in the sense
‘closely related to’ and thus ‘coming in close contact with’ (cf. Od. 7.201–
6); attested nowhere else before the Roman period. van der Ben (1986) 24,
followed by Faulkner (2008) ad loc., detects a pun on ਝȖȤȓıȘȢ.
ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȢ ȖİȞİોȢ is picked up in 219 (of Tithonus’ ancestry), while
İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ĳȣȒȞ Ĳİ is echoed in the somewhat more specifically appreciative
İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ įȑȝĮȢ Ĳİ in 241 (where see n.). For ȖİȞİȒ in the sense ‘family’, see
LfgrE s.v. B 4.
İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ ĳȣȒȞ Ĳİ: i.e. ‘in physical attractiveness’; cf. Il. 22.370 (of
Hector’s corpse, stripped of its armor and soon to be described as ȝĮȜĮțȩȢ,
‘soft’) ĳȣ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ਕȖȘĲȩȞ (‘amazing in its ĳȣȒ and İੇįȠȢ’); Od. 6.16 (of
Nausicaa) ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȚıȚ ĳȣ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ੒ȝȠȓȘ (‘resembling the immortal
goddesses in her ĳȣȒ and İੇįȠȢ’); Hes. Th. 259 (of Euarne, one of the Ne-
reids) ĳȣ੽Ȟ ਥȡĮĲ੽ țĮ੿ İੇįȠȢ ਙȝȦȝȠȢ (‘lovely in ĳȣȒ and faultless in
İੇįȠȢ’). İੇįȠȢ properly refers to an external evaluation of an individual’s
physical appearance, ĳȣȒ to how he or she ‘really is’ (sc. ‘inside’); cf. Od.
5.211–13 (Calypo, speaking of Penelope) ‘I do not believe that I am inferi-
or to her in build or ĳȣȒ, since it is quite unlikely that mortal women can
contend with immortal goddesses in build or İੇįȠȢ.’
202–204 are a modified and expanded version of Il. 20.234–5 (from Aene-
as’ long speech to Achilleus just before the two men come to blows, in-
cluding a detailed account of his own ancestry): (Ganymede, most beauti-
ful of mortal men) ĲઁȞ țĮ੿ ਕȞȘȡȑȥĮȞĲȠ șİȠ੿ ǻȚ੿ ȠੁȞȠȤȠİȪİȚȞ / țȐȜȜİȠȢ
İ੆ȞİțĮ ȠੈȠ, ੆Ȟૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ ȝİĲİȓȘ (‘whom the gods snatched up to pour
wine for Zeus, on account of his beauty, so that he could be among the
immortals’). The most significant difference between the passages is that in
the Hymn Zeus is said to have taken Ganymede so that the boy could serve
the gods collectively, whereas in the Iliad the gods collectively carried out
the kidnapping in order that Ganymede could serve Zeus. Authors and
artists from Theognis (1345–8) on agree that Zeus’ interest in Ganymede
was erotic (cf. Ibyc. PMGF 289(a); Pi. O. 1.43–5; 10.104–5; S. fr. 345; E.
Or. 1391–2; IA 1049–53; Gantz (1993) 557–60; LIMC iv.1.154–5), and
although Aeneas in the Iliad (followed by [Apollod.] Bib. iii.12.2) and
Aphrodite in the Hymn are both silent on the point, the context requires
that interpretation in these verses as well: the point of 200–1 is not just that
the men in Anchises’ family are exceptionally handsome, but that they are
so handsome that even immortals want to sleep with them (and see below
on ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ). Dawn’s purpose in abducting Tithonus is treated in a simi-
larly coy fashion at 218–19, 226 (and see 166–7 n.); cf. 220–1 n. But 230
leaves no doubt that she and Tithonus shared a bed, whereas here the narra-
tor makes a systematic effort to obscure what Aphrodite would otherwise
appear to be saying, by calling Zeus ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ (see below) and assigning
him a decorous public interest in Ganymede’s beauty, sc. as a means to
ornament his halls for the pleasure of the Olympians as a group. See in
general Podbielski (1971) 68; Lenz (1975) 107–9 (with good observations
on how the Hymn-poet combines the Iliadic material and fills in its blank
portions); Smith (1981a) 71–7 (who imports a Freudianizing disapproval
into the Hymn’s version of the story); Clay (1989) 186–7; Bergren (1989)
32–3.
ਵĲȠȚ (‘you can be sure, let me remind you’ vel sim.) renders what fol-
lows particularly vivid; ȝȑȞ is balanced by į(ȑ) in 218. Cf. 225; Denniston
(1954) 553–5.
ȟĮȞșȩȞ is not merely a casual detail, but prepares for and helps explain
੔Ȟ įȚ੹ țȐȜȜȠȢ: Ganymede strikes Zeus as good-looking, and thus as worth
having as a fixture in his house, in part because he is blond. For įȚ੹
țȐȜȜȠȢ, cf. Od. 11.282* / ȖોȝİȞ ਦઁȞ įȚ੹ țȐȜȜȠȢ (‘he married her because
of her beauty’); Hes. fr. 23a.13* (conjectural).
ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ: The adjective suggests that Zeus is not driven by lust in
particular (see above) but proceeds in a rational, calculating fashion, with
an eye to accomplishing the goal defined in the ੆ȞĮ-clause in 203–6. The
entire ੆ȞĮ-clause represents Zeus’ plan. But ǻȚઁȢ țĮĲ੹ į૵ȝĮ (‘in Zeus’
236 Commentary
house’) rather than ‘in his own house’ imagines the god as a third party to
the action rather than as the agent, and thus begins a shift to the Olympians
generally as focalizers that becomes explicit in 205–6 (where see n.).
ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİ ੔Ȟ įȚ੹ țȐȜȜȠȢ: A nu-moveable must have been present in
some form in ȍ, given M’s ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ĮੁȞઁȞ. But it may have been only a
superlinear supplementary letter there (and thus in Ȍ), hence the division in
the Ȍ-family MSS (ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ਦઁȞ fp : ਸ਼ȡʌĮıૅ ਥȞઁȞ x); see Introduction 6.
The nu is in any case unnecessary, and I print Matthiae’s ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİ ੔Ȟ (cf.
Hes. fr. 204.42 ਵșİȜİ ੔Ȟ țĮĲ੹ șȪȝȠȞ) rather than Hermann’s ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ੔Ȟ.
For ਖȡʌȐȗȦ used in erotic contexts (of a rape), see 117–20 n., 218; and
cf. Hes. Th. 914 (of Persephone) ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ ਸȢ ʌĮȡ੹ ȝȘĲȡȩȢ, ਩įȦțİ į੻
ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ (‘[Hades] snatched [her] from her mother, and Zeus the
counsellor gave [her to him]’), which must be the model for 202–3 ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ
ǽİȪȢ / ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİ.
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ ȝİĲİȓȘ might be merely a vague, preliminary way of ex-
plaining the idea spelled out in detail in 204 (‘that he might spend time in
the company of the immortals, by pouring wine for them’), with Gany-
mede’s fate left obscure (a much-honored mortal resident of Olympus? or a
new god?) until 214. But the phrase can also be taken ‘that he might be one
of the immortals’ (cf. 214 with n.), the implication being that Zeus was
aware of the problem Dawn would face in 220–1, but needed no one’s
permission to deal with it. In that case, 204 serves to define the role this
sudden new addition plays in the divine household, and 205 ʌȐȞĲİııȚ …
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ must be understood ‘all the (other) immortals’.
ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪȠȚ: The compound is a hapax legomenon; șİȠ૙Ȣ is a dative
of advantage (‘for the gods’) which does not depend on the prefix. LfgrE s.
ȠੁȞȠȤȠȑȦ suggests that ‘one might think of [the] movement of [the]
ȠੁȞȠȤȩȠȢ’, sc. about the circle of drinkers, which makes good sense with
ǻȚઁȢ țĮĲ੹ į૵ȝĮ in the first half of the verse (Ganymede is to do his work
‘throughout Zeus’ house, pouring wine for the gods’) and is thus most
likely correct (see 205–6 n.). But LfgrE also compares ਥʌȚȕȠȪțȠȜȠȢ (‘the
cowherd in charge’ vel sim., raising the possibility that ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪȦ
means ‘be the wine-pourer in charge’), and notes in addition Baumeister’s
suggestion that the sense intended is ਥʌ੿ ĲોȚ ૠǾȕȘȚ (‘in addition to Hebe’,
who pours the gods’ nektar at Il. 4.3). Ancient scholarship maintained that
water was poured into the mixing-bowl first, with wine added on top of it
(Ath. 11.782a–b, citing Hes. Op. 595–6; Xenoph. fr. B 5 West2; Thphr. fr.
571 Fortenbaugh, presumably from On Drunkenness), so that the idea
might be instead that Ganymede is to ‘pour wine (into the mixing-bowl) on
top of (the water already in it)’, in which case 205–6 refer to a slightly later
stage in the process, as the boy dips the mixed wine from the bowl with a
pitcher. Forms of the verb appear in line-final position at Il. 2.127; 20.234;
Od. 1.143; 21.142. For M’s infinitive ਥʌȚȠȚȞȠȤȠİȪİȚȞ, see 205–6 n.
205–206 An individual scene drawn from Ganymede’s general (anticipat-
ed) service as the gods’ wine-pourer (204). șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįİ૙Ȟ and ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ țĲȜ.
are to be taken together (‘a marvellous sight, as he …’). ʌȐȞĲİııȚ
ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ glosses the opening of the line, explaining who is to
marvel at the sight of Ganymede (viz. all the immortals, without exception;
cf. 202–4 n., and note the overbearing ʌȐȞĲİııȚ, which makes it clear that
Zeus allowed for no exceptions to his plan) and how they are to react (viz.
by showing Ganymede respect and honor, an extraordinary reaction by
Olympian gods to anyone, let alone to a once-mortal boy pouring their
wine, reflecting again Zeus’ deep personal investment in the effect he an-
ticipates), while ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ țĲȜ. describes what the gods are to see. But
ʌȐȞĲİııȚ ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ is also temporally much less specific than
the longer phrase in which it is embedded, and in this sense it is to be taken
with ੆ȞĮ țĲȜ. in 203–4. Ganymede is to be ‘among’ the gods and serve as
their wine-pourer, in which context they will show him respect and honor;
when he fills his pitcher, standing in the center of the group by the mixing-
bowl, allowing them all to look at and appreciate him simultaneously, their
reaction will expand to include awe, sc. at the boy’s beauty.
șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįİ૙Ȟ is an unusual expression (see the second apparatus),
șĮ૨ȝĮ ੁįȑıșĮȚ / (as in 90) being far more common in early epic.
fp have ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȢ, while M has ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞ; the fact that x read
ĲİĲȚȝȑȞȠȞȠȢ leaves little doubt that both endings were available in ȍ, in
ȍ’s descendant Ȍ, and in Ȍ’s descendant Ĭ, with one written above the
other. Cf. Introduction 6. The M-scribe apparently assumed that the word
ought to agree with șĮ૨ȝĮ, and accordingly converted the verb in 204 into
an infinitive, as in the Iliadic exemplar, and did the same with the participle
in 206. The x-scribe, meanwhile, clumsily inserted both endings into the
text.
206 is a strikingly visual and elegantly balanced line (adjective + noun,
participle, noun + adjective), capturing some of the character of the imag-
ined scene itself. But the description of what the gods are to see and marvel
at focuses less on Ganymede than on the mixing-bowl and the nektar he
handles, making it tempting to suppose that the adjectives also refer via a
sort of ecphrastic hypallage to the boy’s golden hair (cf. 202) and his
cheeks, or perhaps better to his blush, when he realizes that all eyes are
upon him as he does the mixing; cf. 284 ȞȪȝĳȘȢ țĮȜȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ with n. For
gold as the substance out of which the gods’ possessions are conventional-
ly made, see 16–17 n. For nektar (often but not always conceived as a liq-
uid substance), see Olson–Sens on Archestr. fr. 16.3–4, and cf. 231–2 n.
238 Commentary
On the level of content, 206 is modeled on passages such as Il. 1.597–8

(Hephaestus dissolves the tension in Zeus’ house by clumsily serving
wine) ĲȠ૙Ȣ … șİȠ૙Ȣ … / ȠੁȞȠȤȩİȚ ȖȜȣțઃ ȞȑțĲĮȡ ਕʌઁ țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ ਕĳȪııȦȞ
(‘he began to pour wine for the … gods, drawing sweet nektar from a mix-
ing-bowl’); cf. Sapph. fr. 141.1–3 țો įૅ ਕȝȕȡȠıȓĮȢ ȝ੻Ȟ / țȡȐĲȘȡ ਥțȑțȡĮĲૅ /
૓ǼȡȝĮȚȢ įૅ ਩ȜȦȞ ੕ȜʌȚȞ șȑȠȚıૅ ਥȠȚȞȠȤȩȘıİ (‘There a bowl of nektar had
been mixed, and Hermes took a pitcher and poured wine for the gods’). But
ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ ਥț țȡȘĲોȡȠȢ is drawn specifically from Il. 23.219* (Achilleus
pours libations to the soul of the dead Patroclus), while ȞȑțĲĮȡ ਥȡȣșȡȩȞ
evokes Il. 19.38* (Thetis preserves Patroclus’ corpse with infusions of
ambrosia and nektar; the phrase is attested in this sedes elsewhere only at
Od. 5.93). The verse thus prepares on another level for the description of
the terrible grief of Tros in 207.
207–210 The Iliad-poet reports at one point that Ganymede was snatched
away by the gods to pour wine for Zeus (20.234–5, quoted in 202–4 n.),
and at another that Zeus compensated Tros, the boy’s father, by giving him
special horses (5.265–7, quoted in 210–11 n.). But the Hymn-poet has sup-
plied the narrative bridge between his two sources, loading it with emo-
tional detail of a sort notably absent from the Homeric passages; cf. 207–9
n., 210–17 with nn.
207–209 203–6 merely articulate Zeus’ intentions at the moment he ab-
ducted Ganymede, but nonetheless serve to carry the narrative forward,
leaving the boy established in his position as the god’s wine-pourer (treated
as a fait accompli in 214 with n.); cf. 220–1 n. These verses return to the
kidnapping and to how it was (mis)understood in the human sphere, by
reference to Tros’ retrospective reaction to the event: because the boy’s
father did not see Zeus carrying off Ganymede, but only noticed an ‘ex-
traordinary whirlwind’ (cf. Od. 20.66–78, where the șȪİȜȜĮȚ that carry off
Pandareos’ daughters are actually Harpies (77) sent by Zeus) and had no
idea what had happened (or would happen) to his son (cf. 214 with n.),
Tros was plunged into extended, dark despair. For other references to
whirlwinds carrying off individuals who thus disappear abruptly and utter-
ly from the human sphere, e.g. Il. 6.345–7 (Helen’s wish never to have
been a part of human society); Od. 1.241–2 ૠǹȡʌȣȚĮȚ ਕȞȘȡȑȥĮȞĲȠ (‘the
Harpies snatched him up’; of Odysseus’ mysterious disappearance on his
voyage home from Troy); 4.727 ਕȞȘȡȑȥĮȞĲȠ șȪİȜȜĮȚ (‘the whirlwinds
snatched him up’; of Telemachus’ sudden disappearance from Ithaca);
5.419 ȝȒ … ਕȞĮȡʌȐȟĮıĮ șȪİȜȜĮ / … ĳȑȡȘȚ (‘lest a whirlwind snatch me
up and carry me away’; Odysseus worries about being carried off to sea,
never to be heard from again); Socrates at Pl. Phdr. 229b–d (on the
Boreias/Oreithyia myth).
207 begins with a description of Tros’ (non-Homeric) grief which, to-

gether with the (similarly non-Homeric) joy that replaces it in 216–17, is
the pole along which the story of Ganymede, as Aphrodite (and the narra-
tor) present it, is organized. 207 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ–208 steps logically and temporally
backward, to explain the ground for this grief (but see below); 209 finally
brings the two ideas together, but with attention to the outward expression
of the grief rather than the mere interior fact of it.
207–8 are perhaps modeled on Od. 24.423 ʌĮȚįઁȢ ȖȐȡ Ƞੂ ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ ਥȞ੿
ĳȡİı੿ ʌȑȞșȠȢ ਩țİȚĲȠ (‘for inescapable grief for his child was stored up in
his mind’; of Eupeithes, grieving for the dead Antinoos). For the combina-
tion ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ … ʌȑȞșȠȢ, cf. also Il. 24.105; Od. 1.342; Hes. Th. 467.
ȉȡ૵Į į੻ ʌȑȞșȠȢ … ਩Ȥİ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ: for the double accusative of the per-
son and the part affected, e.g. Il. 1.362 = 18.73 Ĳȓ įȑ ıİ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ੆țİĲȠ
ʌȑȞșȠȢ; 11.249–50 țȡĮĲİȡȩȞ ૧Ȑ ਦ ʌȑȞșȠȢ / ੑĳșĮȜȝȠઃȢ ਥțȐȜȣȥİ. For the
use of ਩ȤȦ, cf. 199 ਩ıȤİȞ ਙȤȠȢ with n.
The adjectives in 208 are focalized in the first instance by Tros: an ex-
traordinary (șȑıʌȚȢ) whirlwind—i.e. one capable of carrying off a human
being—snatched up the son he loved (ĳȓȜȠȞ); as a consequence, he could
not forget (ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ) his grief. But șȑıʌȚȢ (properly ‘divine’) simultaneous-
ly hints at the fact that what Tros took to be a whirlwind was actually Zeus,
while the standard epic sense of ਕȞĮȡʌȐȗȦ is not ‘snatch up into the sky’
but ‘kidnap’ (117–20 n.). The idea that Ganymede was carried off by Zeus’
eagle (rather than by Zeus himself, or by a whirlwind, as here) is not attest-
ed in art or literature before the 4th century BCE; see Gantz (1993) 560.
The a-scribe took Tros to be the subject (‘Tros had unescapable pain in his
mind’) and wrote ȉȡ૵Ȣ rather than ȉȡ૵Į.
For the unaugmented form İ੅įȘ (which can be thought to begin with a
digamma, as hiatus routinely suggests that it must in the text of Homer) as
opposed to the MSS’s augmented Ș੅įȘ/ਵȚįİȚ/ਵįİȚ (which cannot begin with
a digamma), see the Praefatio to West (1998) xxxiii.
੖ʌʌȘȚ țĲȜ: The question with which Tros is supposed to torture him-
self focuses on Ganymede’s destination rather than his fate (‘Where did the
whirlwind take my son?’ not ‘What has happened to my son?’), and its
unexpected form reflects the narrator’s knowledge that the bȠy was still
alive, and his guiding interest in the fact that Ganymede was carried off to
Zeus’ house (204).
Hiatus is standard before Ƞੂ (West (1982) 14–15), as here.
For į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ in place of the paradosis įਵʌİȚĲĮ, cf. 56 with n.
ȖȩĮıțİ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ: The elaborate description of Tros’
outward expression of his grief—he went on lamenting constantly and
incessantly, day after day—picks up on the idea of ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ in 207: the old
man could not forget his son, and his under-informed mourning dragged on
240 Commentary
and on, until the king of the gods at last intervened (210). The form
ȖȩĮıțİ is attested nowhere else in early epic, but cf. ȖȠȐĮıțİȞ at Od.
8.92.
210–217 At Il. 5.265–7 (quoted in 210–11 n.) Aeneas reports that Zeus
gave Tros special horses (for which, see 210–11 n.) in compensation for
his loss of Ganymede. (Contrast Il.parv. fr. 29, pp. 84–5 Bernabé, where
the father’s name is Laomedon, and he receives a gold grapevine made by
Hephaestus.) The Homeric Aeneas makes no mention of grief on Tros’ part
or pity on Zeus’, and the exchange takes on something approaching a
commercial character: in return for the most beautiful of human beings (cf.
20.233), Tros is awarded—and seemingly accepts without protest—the
finest horses in the world. Nor is the Iliadic Tros told what has happened to
Ganymede, or even why the boy was taken. In Aphrodite’s version of the
story, by contrast, Zeus acted out of pity (210) rather than a sense of equi-
ty, and the gift of horses—which now sits somewhat awkwardly within the
story created to contextualize and explain it—was accompanied, on his
express orders (213), by a full account of the situation and in particular the
fact that Ganymede was to be made immortal (212, 214). Only after Tros
received this news, moreover, is he said to abandon his grief and take
pleasure in the gift he had been given (215–17).
210–211 are modeled on Il. 5.265–7 (the ancestry of Aeneas’ horses,
which Anchises got by secretly breeding his own mares to Laomedon’s
stallions) ĲોȢ ȖȐȡ ĲȠȚ ȖİȞİોȢ, ਸȢ ȉȡȦ૘ ʌİȡ İ੝ȡȪȠʌĮ ǽİȪȢ / į૵Ȥૅ ȣੈȠȢ ʌȠȚȞ੽Ȟ
īĮȞȣȝȒįİȠȢ, Ƞ੢Ȟİțૅ ਙȡȚıĲȠȚ / ੆ʌʌȦȞ, ੖ııȠȚ ਩ĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ ਱૵ Ĳૅ ਱ȑȜȚȩȞ Ĳİ (‘For
they are of the breed that wide-voiced Zeus gave to Tros, as compensation
for his son Ganymede, since they are the best horses of all those beneath
the dawn and the sun’).
For ȣੈȠȢ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ, cf. 137–40 n.; Il.parv. fr. 29.1, p. 84 Bernabé (of
Zeus’ gift to Laomedon in return for Ganymede) ʌĮȚįઁȢ ਙʌȠȚȞĮ /.
Homeric horses are routinely described as ੩țȪʌȠįİȢ (‘swift-footed’;
common in this sedes, e.g. Il. 5.732; 10.535, 569; Od. 18.263; 23.245), but
can be ਕİȡıȓʌȠįİȢ (whence the contracted form ਕȡıȓʌȠįĮȢ; attested
nowhere else in early epic), literally ‘foot-lifting’, i.e. ‘prancing’ vel sim.,
when the meter requires (Il. 3.327 / ੆ʌʌȠȚ ਕİȡıȓʌȠįİȢ; 18.532 ਥĳૅ
੆ʌʌȦȞ / ȕȐȞĲİȢ ਕİȡıȚʌȩįȦȞ; 23.475 / ੆ʌʌȠȚ ਕİȡıȓʌȠįİȢ). That is
not the case here, and the adjective might have been chosen to fit the im-
mediate narrative context; although the horses given to Tros are patently
high-spirited, they are not yet in rapid motion (contrast 215–17). But un-
like in Iliad 5, where Zeus offers Tros the best (mortal) horses in the world,
Aphrodite claims that he awarded him the type that pull the chariots of the
gods (ĲȠȓ Ĳૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ ĳȠȡȑȠȣıȚ), sc. through the air (e.g. Il. 8.392–6).
The more significant point must accordingly be that his new team are ca-
pable of lifting their feet up off the ground in flight, at least when they
carry Olympians; cf. 217 ਕİȜȜȠʌȩįİııȚȞ with n.
In Iliad 5, Tros gets extraordinary horses in return for his equally ex-
traordinary child (210–17 n.). Here the nature of the exchange (cf. above)
reflects instead the relationship between the Hymn and its Iliadic exemplar:
just as Tros’ mortal son is made immortal, so are Homer’s mortal horses.
The inflation of the value of the horses also makes clear by contrast how
significant the news of Ganymede’s fate is to Tros, since he pays no atten-
tion to the former until he is offered the latter (215–17 with nn.).
212–214 ĲȠȪȢ Ƞੂ į૵ȡȠȞ ਩įȦțİȞ ਩ȤİȚȞ resumes 210–11 įȓįȠȣ įȑ Ƞੂ ȣੈȠȢ
ਙʌȠȚȞĮ, / ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ਕȡıȓʌȠįĮȢ, picking up the narrative thread again after the
brief digression on the nature of the horses in the second half of 211.
į૵ȡȠȞ glosses 210 ਙʌȠȚȞĮ (cf. Il. 5.266 ʌȠȚȞȒȞ), but simultaneously under-
cuts the force of the word, altering the character of the story as a whole.
The horses are now not ‘satisfaction’ for Ganymede, but merely a ‘gift’—
and a seemingly incidental one at that. What matters to Tros is instead
Hermes’ news of his son’s happy situation (214), and only after the old
man has that, does he take pleasure in his extraordinary new team (215–
17); cf. 210–11 n.
The subject of ਩įȦțİȞ seems at first to be Zeus (cf. 210 įȓįȠȣ), but
might instead be Hermes, who is certainly the subject of İੇʌİȞ. In either
case, it must be Hermes (acting as Zeus’ agent) who actually brought Tros
the horses Zeus had offered him, and at the same time told the old man
what had happened to Ganymede. The subjects of the verbs in 214–17 are
even less explicitly marked and must be deduced from context: only Gan-
ymede is likely to be made immortal (cf. 203–5 with 202–4 n.), and only
Tros is in a position to hear Zeus’ message (cf. 212–13), give up his grief
(cf. 207), and take pleasure in his horses (cf. 210–11).
İੇʌȑȞ Ĳİ ਪțĮıĲĮ implies that Tros learned everything that Anchises
and the Hymn’s external audience are told in 202–5, including who abduct-
ed Ganymede and where he was taken to (cf. 207–8 with nn.), and how he
was regarded there. But none of this is mentioned in 214, where the news
that finally released Tros from his grief (215–17) is summarized as simply
the fact that Ganymede was now immortal and thus virtually a god.
ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥĳȘȝȠıȪȞȘȚıȚ: i.e., implicitly, as an expression of the pity re-
ferred to in 210; and cf. 215–17 n. on 215 ǽȘȞઁȢ … ਕȖȖİȜȚȐȦȞ. Elsewhere
in early epic, ਥĳȘȝȠıȪȞȘ is attested only in the singular.
įȚȐțĲȠȡȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ: i.e. Hermes, referred to here in his capacity
as the one who bridges the divine and human worlds (cf. 147–8 n.), and
specifically as Zeus’ trusted agent or messenger (e.g. Il. 24.339; Od. 5.43;
Hes. Op. 77; cf. 117–20 n. on ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ).
242 Commentary
ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȢ țĮ੿ ਕȖȒȡȦȢ: a traditional formulation (see the second appa-

ratus, and cf. Od. 5.218; Hes. frr. 25.28; 229.8 (conjectural); Janko (1981a)
382–5; Clay (1981–82) 112–17), used here to set up the story of Dawn’s
ill-conceived request for Tithonus in 220–4. Elsewhere, the line generally
ends with the words ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ (cf. the passages cited in the second
apparatus, all of which conclude this way, and note 221*), which must
have been given as an alternative reading in ȍ. The M-scribe opted for the
more innovative ੇıĮ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ (also formular, but not attested elsewhere
with forms of ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȢ țĮ੿ ਕȖȒȡȦȢ/ਕȖȒȡĮȠȢ, and thus the lectio
difficilior), whereas the Ȍ-scribe wrote ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ but retained ੇıĮ
șİȠ૙ıȚȞ as a variant in the margin (as in b, the archetypes of all other sur-
viving members of the family having chosen to ignore the note). Cf. Intro-
duction 6.
215–217 For the subjects of the verbs, see 212–14 n.
215 resumes 212 İੇʌİȞ–213 after the expanded account of Hermes’
message to Tros in 214 (contrast 212 ਪțĮıĲĮ); cf. 212–14 n. on ĲȠȪȢ Ƞੂ
į૵ȡȠȞ ਩įȦțİȞ ਩ȤİȚȞ. Although Hermes speaks to Tros, the formulation
ǽȘȞઁȢ … ਕȖȖİȜȚȐȦȞ stresses that he acts only as an intermediary, as at Od.
5.150 (quoted in the first apparatus; Calypso responds to an order from
Zeus delivered by Hermes, repeatedly described in the scene as įȚȐțĲȠȡȠȢ
ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ (cf. 213 with n.)), on which the verse is modeled. Cf. the
even more emphatic ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥĳȘȝȠıȪȞȘȚıȚ in 213.
216–17 describe first how Tros ceased to behave; then the altered in-
ternal state that produced that change; and finally how this new internal
state was expressed outwardly (note the echo of ȖİȖȒșİȚ in ȖȘșȩıȣȞȠȢ).
Ƞ੝țȑĲૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ȖȩĮıțİ echoes and reverses 209 ĲઁȞ į੽ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ȖȩĮıțİ, while
ȖİȖȒșİȚ į੻ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਩ȞįȠȞ (modifying the formular ȖİȖȒșİȚ į੻ ĳȡȑȞĮ (* at Il.
11.683; hDem. 232; cf. ȖİȖȒșİ įȑ Ĳİ ĳȡȑȞĮ * at Il. 8.559; Od. 6.106; ıઃ į੻
ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਩ȞįȠȞ ਥȖȒșİȚȢ * at Od. 24.382) recalls and again reverses 207
ʌȑȞșȠȢ ਙȜĮıĲȠȞ ਩Ȥİ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ.
੆ʌʌȠȚıȚȞ ਕİȜȜȠʌȩįİııȚȞ: Elsewhere in early epic, the adjective is
applied exclusively to Iris (Il. 8.409 = 24.77 = 159; always in her capacity
as Zeus’ messenger), presumably in reference to the speed with which she
moves (thus LfgrE s.v.; subsequently of horses also at Simon. PMG 515;
Pi. N. 1.6; fr. 221.1). The word perhaps captures Tros’ delight in his new
team, which seem to him to run as fast as the wind; cf. 291 n.; Il. 16.148–
50 (Achilleus’ immortal horses not only ਚȝĮ ʌȞȠȚોȚıȚ ʌİĲȑıșȘȞ (‘flew
along with the gusts of wind’), but were sired by the West Wind). But giv-
en the description in 211 (where see n.), the point is at least as likely that
the horses are not just swift but capable of moving through the air (like Iris,
as well as the Trojan king Erichthonius’ horses at Il. 20.221–9), even if
they do not take Tros on that path when he hitches them up to his chariot
(ੑȤİ૙ĲȠ). In any case, the description of them as ‘whirlwind-footed’ pre-

sents them as a suitable recompense for Ganymede, who—at least as far as
his father could tell—was carried off by an ਙİȜȜĮ (208).
ੑȤİ૙ĲȠ: Tros’ expression of his joy, like his grief (209), is on-going,
hence the imperfect: he rides habitually about, and the display he makes of
his gift to mortals matches the way Ganymede is constantly admired in
Zeus’ house (205–6 with nn.).
218–238 A second example of an exceptionally good-looking member of
Anchises’ extended family who was snatched away by a god; cf. 200–6
with 202–4 n. But in this case the story ends unhappily for the abducted
mortal in particular. See in general Podbielski (1971) 69–72; Lenz (1975)
109–12; Smith (1981a) 77–86 (82–6 on the tradition outside the Hymn);
Clay (1989) 187–9. For Tithonus, cf. Il. 20.237 (a son of Laomedon; no
mention of him being stolen by Dawn, although note his absence from the
group of Trojan elders, which includes all his brothers, at Il. 3.146–8); Hes.
Th. 984–5 (Dawn bore him Memnon and Emathion); Il. 11.1–2 = Od. 5.1–
2 (Dawn rises from his bed first thing in the morning, as if Tithonus had
never aged and the two had never been estranged); Sapph. fr. 58.18–22 (as
supplemented by the new Cologne papyrus, with the text drawn from West
(2005) 5; very similar in some ways to the version of the story offered
here, but with no hint that the disaster could have been averted and no
specific reference to Tithonus’ eternal old age) ਕȖȒȡĮȠȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ
਩ȠȞĲૅ Ƞ੝ įȪȞĮĲȠȞ ȖȑȞİıșĮȚ. / țĮ੿ ȖȐȡ ʌҕ[Ƞ]ĲҕĮҕ ȉȓșȦȞȠȞ ਩ĳĮȞĲȠ
ȕȡȠįȩʌĮȤȣȞ ǹ੡ȦȞ / ਩ȡȦȚ ĳ … ĮҕșҕİҕȚıĮȞ ȕȐȝİȞૅ İੁȢ ਩ıȤĮĲĮ Ȗ઼Ȣ
ĳȑȡȠȚıĮ[Ȟ], / ਩ȠȞĲĮҕ [ț]Ȑҕ Ȝ ҕ Ƞ ҕ Ȟ țĮ੿ ȞȑȠȞ, ਕȜȜૅ Į੣ĲȠȞ ੡ȝȦȢ ਩ȝĮȡȥİ /
ȤȡȩȞȦȚ ʌҕ ȩ ҕ Ȝ ҕ Ț ҕ Ƞ ҕ Ȟ ҕ ȖોȡĮȢ, ਩Ȥҕ [ Ƞ]Ȟҕ Ĳ ҕ ૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲĮȞ ਙțȠȚĲȚȞ (‘It is impossible
for a human being to avoid old age. For the story was that rosy-armed
Dawn, smitten by love, once set off to the earth’s ends, carrying Tithonus.
He was handsome and young; but all the same, gray old age eventually lay
hold of him, although he had an immortal wife’); Mimn. fr. 4 West2 (as-
suming that the subject of the verb is Zeus, referring to Tithonus’ paradox-
ical, ugly fate as described in the Hymn) ȉȚșȦȞ૵Ț ȝ੻Ȟ ਩įȦțİȞ ਩ȤİȚȞ
țĮțઁȞ ਙĳșȚĲȠȞ ‫ ۄ … ۃ‬/ ȖોȡĮȢ, ੔ țĮ੿ șĮȞȐĲȠȣ ૧ȓȖȚȠȞ ਕȡȖĮȜȑȠȣ (‘He
awarded Tithonus eternal ugly old age, something more frightening than
wretched death’); Tyrt. fr. 12.5 West2 Ƞ੝įૅ İੁ ȉȚșȦȞȠ૙Ƞ ĳȣ੽Ȟ ȤĮȡȚȑıĲİȡȠȢ
İ੅Ș (‘not even if he was handsomer than Tithonus’); Gantz (1993) 36–7,
557; Olson on Ar. Ach. 688. Like the Hymn-poet, Ibycus told the stories of
Ganymede and Tithonus one after another, although we know nothing
more than that (PMGF 289(a)); and Mimnermus’ ȉȚșȦȞ૵Ț ȝȑȞ was pre-
sumably balanced by a įȑ-clause describing someone who got better—or at
least different—treatment (sc. from Zeus), with Ganymede an obvious
candidate. Cf. also E. Tr. 820–57. For Dawn’s other romances with human
244 Commentary
beings, cf. 157–60 n. (Orion); Od. 15.249–51 (Cleitus; one of the models
for this passage); Hes. Th. 986–7 (Cephalus); Gantz (1993) 36.
218–219 ੪Ȣ įૅ Į੣ is attested in this sedes elsewhere in early epic only at
Od. 5.129, at the conclusion of Calypso’s catalogue of mortal lovers of
goddesses, and of how terribly the other gods have treated them.
ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ, also used of Dawn at e.g. Od. 12.142 = 15.56; 14.502;
15.250 (the abduction of Cleitus); 19.319; cf. hHerm. 326, stresses her
divine majesty (for gold as the characteristic material of the gods’ posses-
sions, see 16–17 n.) and thus her standing not just to make requests of Zeus
(220–1), but to have them granted (222); cf. 223 n. on ʌȩĲȞȚĮ. The epithet
is also applied to Hera (Il. 1.611; 14.153; 15.5; hAp. 305; h. 12.1) and Ar-
temis (Il. 9.533; Od. 5.123), but is particularly appropriate of Dawn, since
it can be understood as describing aspects of her appearance early in the
morning; cf. 226 ȤȡȣıȠșȡȩȞȦȚ with n. That the second element in the ad-
jective is originally from the rare and obscure șȡȩȞĮ, ‘flowers’ (Il. 22.441),
rather than from șȡȩȞȠȢ, is possible. But there is no indication that the
word was understood that way by the Hymn-poet or the original audience,
and Wilamowitz’s insistence that, however one might describe the goddess
moving through the sky early in the morning, one could scarcely refer to
her as ‘enthroned’, is (despite Càssola (1975) ad loc.) too heavy-handedly
literal to be taken seriously. Cf. Il. 8.442–3 Į੝ĲઁȢ į੻ ȤȡȪıİȚȠȞ ਥʌ੿ șȡȩȞȠȞ
İ੝ȡȪȠʌĮ ǽİȪȢ / ਪȗİĲȠ (‘wide-voiced Zeus himself sat upon his gold
throne’); LfgrE s. ਥȪșȡȠȞȠȢ. p’s ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȞ represents assimilation to the
case of ȉȚșȦȞȩȞ.
ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞ: cf. 117–20 n., 202–4 n.
Aphrodite’s point is not that Dawn took Tithonus away from his family
(although that is true; cf. 207–9), but that he was from the Trojan royal
family and was accordingly worth taking, which is to say that ਫ਼ȝİĲȑȡȘȢ
ȖİȞİોȢ (echoing 201) is to be taken more closely with ȉȚșȦȞȩȞ (as a defin-
ing genitive, ‘(a member) of your family’) than with the verb (as a partitive
genitive; cf. LSJ s.v. ਖȡʌȐȗȦ 2).
ਥʌȚİȓțİȜȠȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ explains Dawn’s behavior: she kidnapped Ti-
thonus because he looked handsome enough to be a god. Cf. 91–106 n. (on
the comparison of good-looking mortals to gods), 202–3 with n.; Sapph. fr.
58.21 ਩ȠȞĲĮҕ [ț]ȐҕȜҕȠҕȞ; Tyrt. fr. 12.5 West2 (both quoted in 218–38 n.).
220–225 The story of Dawn’s appeal to Zeus is omitted in Sapph. fr. 58
(quoted, along with Mimn. fr. 4 West2, in 218–38 n.), and although Mim-
nermus says explicitly that ‘(Zeus) awarded Tithonus eternal ugly old age’
(ȉȚșȦȞ૵Ț … ਩įȦțİȞ ਩ȤİȚȞ țĮțઁȞ ਙĳșȚĲȠȞ ‫ ۄ … ۃ‬/ ȖોȡĮȢ), no reference to
the king of the gods’ motivation in doing so survives there, and the charac-
terization of Tithonus’ fate as ‘more frightening than death’ in the balance
of the second verse is at least as likely to represent a general human eval-

uation of the situation (cf. esp. Mimn. frr. 1.10; 2.9–10; 5.5–8; 6 West2) as
Zeus’ desire to inflict a terrible punishment on Dawn’s mortal lover (alt-
hough cf. 222 n.).
220–221 ȕો įૅ ੅ȝİȞ: At 218–19, Dawn patently snatches Tithonus away
from Troy, but not to heaven, since she now sets off there, unaccompanied,
as far as one can tell, from somewhere else. She must thus first take Titho-
nus to her home, at the furthest edge of the earth (227 with n.), and specifi-
cally to her bed; for the (typically epic) discretion in the handling of the
physical aspect of the relationship, cf. 166–7 n., 202–4 n. That fact in turn
provides the otherwise unspecified motivation for Dawn’s decision to seek
immortality for Tithonus in these verses: he has proved a satisfactory lover,
as Odysseus did for Calypso, who similarly wanted to make her favorite
human being immortal and keep him forever (esp. Od. 5.135–6, 208–9),
and as the Unjust Argument at Ar. Nu. 1067–9 mockingly claims that Pel-
eus did not, causing Thetis to desert him at the first opportunity.
Although ĮੁĲȒıȠȣıĮ … / ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȞ țĲȜ. merely describes Dawn’s
intention when she sets off on her journey to heaven, the participle carries
the narrative forward with it (cf. 207–9 n. on 203–6), so that in 222 Zeus is
already responding to the (strictly speaking, not yet articulated) request.
ਕșȐȞĮĲȠȞ … İੇȞĮȚ represents the change in Tithonus’ status that Dawn
requests, ȗȫİȚȞ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ its anticipated practical effect. For ȕો įૅ
੅ȝİȞ ĮੁĲȒıȠȣıĮ, cf. Od. 17.365 / ȕો įૅ ੅ȝİȞ ĮੁĲȒıȦȞ. ȕો įૅ ੅ȝİȞ ap-
pears * also at e.g. Il. 5.167; 10.32; 13.242; 14.166; Od. 2.5; 4.24, 310,
528.
The epithet ȀȡȠȞȓȦȞĮ stresses Zeus’ authority as his father’s successor
and thus as master of the universe (cf. 22–3 n.; Od. 9.552 = 13.25 ǽȘȞ੿
țİȜĮȚȞİĳȑȚ ȀȡȠȞȓįȘȚ, ੔Ȣ ʌ઼ıȚȞ ਕȞȐııİȚ (‘to dark-cloud Zeus, who rules
over everyone’)), while țİȜĮȚȞİĳȑĮ places him—and thus the location of
his encounter with Dawn (cf. above)—in the sky (cf. Il. 2.412 ǽİ૨ țȪįȚıĲİ
ȝȑȖȚıĲİ țİȜĮȚȞİĳ੻Ȣ ĮੁșȑȡȚ ȞĮȓȦȞ (‘Dark-cloud Zeus, most famous and
greatest, dwelling in the upper air’)), i.e. in his house there. But the adjec-
tive perhaps adds a note of gloomy foreboding as well; see 223–4 n., and
cf. Kirk on Il. 2.412–18.
221 = 240, where Aphrodite, in an extraordinary argumentative step
(see n. ad loc.), rejects the idea of allowing what happened to Tithonus to
happen to Anchises as well, and on that basis declines to continue the rela-
tionship.
222 ĲોȚ is a dative of interest, to be taken with both verbs; cf. Il. 15.75
(Zeus describes his agreement to grant Achilleus’ request to be honored by
246 Commentary
Agamemnon) ੮Ȣ Ƞੂ ਫ਼ʌȑıĲȘȞ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ, ਥȝ૵Ț įૅ ਥʌȑȞİȣıĮ țȐȡȘĲȚ (‘as I prom-

ised him initially, and I nodded assent to his request with my head’).
ਥʌȑȞİȣıİ describes Zeus’ outward response to Dawn’s entreaty (for the
gesture, cf. Il. 1.524–30; 8.246; 15.75; 17.209; hDem. 466), ਥțȡȒȘȞİȞ
ਥȑȜįȦȡ the action he took to ratify it. Nothing suggests that Zeus said a
single word in response, much less in argument, despite the extraordinary
nature of Dawn’s request; although the business turned out badly for Ti-
thonus, and thus for the goddess herself, she only found this out much later
(225–30), and there appears to have been no possibility of an appeal to
correct the situation, at least at that point. At Od. 5.118–28, Calypso com-
plains (petulantly) that the male Olympians are systematically hostile to the
goddesses’ occasional desire to establish publicly acknowledged long-term
sexual relationships with mortal men; although Dawn is called a fool (223)
for failing to recognize the mistake she was making, Zeus’ immediate
agreement to her disastrous formulation of what she wanted might accord-
ingly be read as a quiet but sure expression of hostility, especially given his
own private resolution of the same problem in the case of Ganymede (214
with n.). See 239–46 n. ਥțȡȒȘȞİȞ ਥȑȜįȦȡ is an otherwise unattested variant
of a cluster of Homeric line-end formulae: țȡȒȘȞȠȞ ਥȑȜįȦȡ / (Il. 1.41,
504), ਥʌȚțȡȒȘȞȠȞ ਥȑȜįȦȡ / (Il. 1.455; 8.242; 16.238), and țȡȘȒȞĮĲૅ ਥȑȜįȦȡ
/ (Od. 3.418; 17.242).
223–224 Despite 214, where immortality and agelessness are paired in
Hermes’ report to Tros about Ganymede’s happy situation, it is not imme-
diately apparent that Dawn made the wrong request in 221; only after her
wish has been granted does Aphrodite explain the goddess’ mistake. The
structure of the opening portion of the Tithonus-narrative thus anticipates
Dawn’s own disappointment, as she realizes—too late—what she has done.
These verses could easily have been omitted, but their presence allows the
audience to grasp the tragedy in advance and thus watch it unfold with an
understanding and at least partially sympathetic eye (cf. 225–7 n.). Sap-
pho’s version of the story, by contrast, presents Tithonus’ fate as inevitable
(esp. 18 ਕȖȒȡĮȠȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ ਩ȠȞĲૅ Ƞ੝ įȪȞĮĲȠȞ ȖȑȞİıșĮȚ (‘It is impos-
sible for a human being to avoid old age’), echoing the request Dawn failed
to make, according to Aphrodite in the Hymn), and contains no hint that his
divine lover could have—or even tried—to save him from growing old.
ȞȘʌȓȘ represents a retrospective judgment by Aphrodite (although cf.
237–8 n.), and 223 as a whole is an example of a standard early epic verse-
type (e.g. Il. 5.406 ȞȒʌȚȠȢ, Ƞ੝į੻ Ĳઁ Ƞੇįİ țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮ ȉȣįȑȠȢ ȣੂȩȢ (‘The
fool! The son of Tydeus did not know in his mind …’); 20.264 ȞȒʌȚȠȢ,
Ƞ੝įૅ ਥȞȩȘıİ țĮĲ੹ ĳȡȑȞĮ țĮ੿ țĮĲ੹ șȣȝȩȞ (‘The fool! He did not know in
his mind and his heart …’); 22.445 ȞȘʌȓȘ, Ƞ੝įૅ ਥȞȩȘıİȞ, ੖ ȝȚȞ ȝȐȜĮ ĲોȜİ
ȜȠİĲȡ૵Ȟ (‘The fool! She did not realize that far, far from the washing wa-
ter, he …’)), in which the point is either that the subject should have
known or realized something (in which case the tone is condemnatory: e.g.
Il. 5.406; 20.264; Od. 3.146; Hes. Op. 40, 456) or that he or she could not
have known this (in which case the tone is pathetic: e.g. Il. 2.38; 12.113;
17.497)—but with the judgment routinely rendered by the narrator rather
than by a character within the story. Here the emphasis on intellectual pro-
cesses—or the lack of them—in ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİıȓ suggests condemnation: Dawn
fell into a trap she might have avoided, had she thought matters through
more carefully. The dignified ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ thus has something approaching
an ironic tone: ‘mistress Dawn’—who might have asked for, and perhaps
got, anything she wanted (cf. 218–19 n. on 218 ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ)—made a
mess of the situation. Cf. 230* with n. The title ʌȩĲȞȚĮ is commonly ap-
plied to a wide variety of goddesses, e.g. Circe (Od. 8.448), Demeter
(hDem. 478), Hebe (Il. 4.2), Hera (Il. 1.551), Leda (hAp. 12), Maia
(hHerm. 19), Peitho (Hes. Op. 73), and Tethys (Hes. Th. 368); also of
Dawn at Sapph. fr. 157 ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ǹ੡ȦȢ.
ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİıȓ appears * at 72 (where see n.), 193.
ਸ਼ȕȘȞ ĮੁĲોıĮȚ ȟ૨ıĮȓ Ĳૅ ਙʌȠ ȖોȡĮȢ ੑȜȠȚȩȞ: The closest parallels for
the language are at Il. 9.445–6 (Phoenix denies that he would abandon
Achilleus) Ƞ੝įૅ İ੅ țȑȞ ȝȠȚ ਫ਼ʌȠıĲĮȓȘ șİઁȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ / ȖોȡĮȢ ਕʌȠȟȪıĮȢ
șȒıİȚȞ ȞȑȠȞ ਲȕȫȠȞĲĮ (‘not even if the god himself were to promise to
scrape my old age and make me young and vigorous’) and Nost. fr. 7.1–2,
p. 97 Bernabé (Medea restores Aeson’s youth with her magic drugs)
Į੝ĲȓțĮ … șોțİ … ਲȕȫȠȞĲĮ / ȖોȡĮȢ ਕʌȠȟȪıĮıĮ (‘Immediately she made
him vigorous, by scraping off his old age’), in both of which old age is
imagined as a scurf or patina that can be scoured off a person, as in 244.
But Phoenix and Aeson are already old men, who thus require such treat-
ment, whereas Tithonus at this point in his story is not (225), making the
imagined alternative (or supplemental) request self-contradictory. Someone
awarded perpetual youth will never need to slough off old age to begin
with; what Dawn ought to have requested for her lover was instead a com-
bination of eternal life and eternal ਸ਼ȕȘ (cf. 214). Despite the way Aphro-
dite presents them, therefore, these words do not describe ‘what Dawn
ought really to have asked for’, but anticipate the narrative arc of what
follows in 225–38: because Dawn failed to make the proper request of
Zeus, Tithonus eventually began to grow gray; and because Dawn at that
point lacked the ability to scrape or scour her lover young again, the situa-
tion could not be redeemed. For ‘youth’ and ‘old age’ as opposed condi-
tions, with no intermediary phase between them, see 228–9 n.
Ĳ(İ) links not ĮੁĲોıĮȚ and ȟ૨ıĮȚ, but ਸ਼ȕȘȞ and ȟ૨ıĮȚ, which are both
the objects of the first infinitive: ‘to request perpetual youth and (the ability
to) scour off …’
248 Commentary
ੑȜȠȚȩȞ: For the adjective (a metrically convenient form of ੑȜȠȩȢ, at-

tested also at Il. 1.342; 22.5 (both in the feminine)) used of ȖોȡĮȢ, cf. 246
Ƞ੝ȜȩȝİȞȠȞ; Il. 24.487 ੑȜȠ૵Ț ਥʌ੿ ȖȒȡĮȠȢ Ƞ੝į૵Ț (via hypallage); Hes. Th.
604 ੑȜȠઁȞ įૅ ਥʌ੿ ȖોȡĮȢ. The focalization must in the first instance be
Dawn’s (cf. 225 with n., 229 with n.), but can simultaneously be conceived
as Aphodite’s own: Tithonus’ old age ruined everything for him and his
lover (228–38), just as it can be expected to spoil what might otherwise
have been the happiness of Aphrodite and Anchises (244–5). Cf. 233
ıĲȣȖİȡઁȞ … ȖોȡĮȢ with n.
225–227 resume the situation described in 220–1, but with more detail and
with unexpected attention to Tithonus’ situation rather than Dawn’s (see
below); the verses thus serve to set up the disastrous reversal described in
228–36 (which could have followed immediately after 222, albeit with a
considerable lessening of the emotional impact of the passage). 225 is the
first specific reference in the Hymn to the fact that Tithonus was a young
man when Dawn carried him off (although cf. 224 with n.), a point needed
to make the contrast with 228–30 as sharp as possible. Cf. Sapph. fr. 58.21
਩ȠȞĲĮҕ [ț]ȐҕȜҕȠҕȞ țĮ੿ ȞȑȠȞ (‘He was handsome and young’).
ਵĲȠȚ İ੆ȦȢ: see 202–4 n. Here ȝȑȞ is balanced by Į੝ĲȐȡ in 228. For the
hiatus, cf. 135 ĲȠȚ ੒ȝȩșİȞ with n., 230 / ĲȠ૨ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ İ੝ȞોȢ* (which lacks a
Homeric exemplar, and for which this verse perhaps served as a model,
given their proximity); Il. 12.141 / Ƞ੄ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ İ੆ȦȢ. For İ੆ȦȢ written thus
(rather than ਸ਼ȠȢ), see West (1966).
਩ȤİȞ: For the use of the verb in the sense ‘prevail over’ vel sim., see
LfgrE s.v. B I 1 aȕ cc ĮĮ (p. 844); and cf. 199 with n., 207; Il. 18.515
ਕȞȑȡİȢ Ƞ੠Ȣ ਩Ȥİ ȖોȡĮȢ.
The focalizer of ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ, as of ੑȜȠȚȩȞ in 224 (where see n.) and
țĮȜોȢ and İ੝ȘȖİȞȑȠȢ in 229 (where see n.), is in the first instance Dawn,
to whom the adolescent Tithonus appeared overwhelmingly desirable
(218–22). But her treatment of him after he grows old suggests the exist-
ence of other initially appreciative viewers as well (cf. 230–2 n.), and Aph-
rodite’s attraction to the similarly only temporarily youthful and attractive
Anchises (cf. 241–3) also colors the word. For ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ, cf. 274*;
forms of the adjective appear * also at Hes. fr. 305.1; hHerm. 186.
226–7 ominously rework Od. 22.197–8, where the goatherd Melanthi-
us is left to suffer with his arms and legs twisted backward, and suspended
from the ceiling by ropes, in what Eumaeus and Philoetius mockingly de-
scribe as a ‘soft bed’ (22.196): Ƞ੝į੻ ıȑ Ȗૅ ਱ȡȚȖȑȞİȚĮ ʌĮȡૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠȐȦȞ
/ ȜȒıİȚ ਕȞİȡȤȠȝȑȞȘ ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ (‘You won’t fail to notice early-born,
gold-throned Dawn when she arises from Ocean’s streams!’).
The end of 227 is borrowed from a similarly unhappy context, Odys-
seus’ lying story to Polyphemus of how he and his men came to the mon-
ster’s cave, their ship supposedly having been wrecked ਥʌ੿ ʌİȓȡĮıȚ ȖĮȓȘȢ
(Od. 9.284). Up to this point, the narrative has concentrated on Dawn, and
Tithonus has been a pawn. But in 226–7 the focus shifts abruptly to his
situation and in particular to the pleasure he takes in (sleeping with) her,
rather than the other way around; and the one who suffers most in what
follows is emphatically Tithonus, not his divine lover.
ĲİȡʌȩȝİȞȠȢ: sc. in bed (cf. 230), although that is not yet said specifi-
cally; cf. 202–4 n. But the implication is that Tithonus’ life was generally
happy at this point; contrast 230–8 with nn. Forms of ĲİȡʌȩȝİȞȠȢ appear *
at Il. 7.61; Od. 12.52; h. 27.5.
Dawn’s home is located at the furthest eastern edge of the earth (ਥʌ੿
ʌİȓȡĮıȚ ȖĮȓȘȢ; cf. Sapph. fr. 58.20 İੁȢ ਩ıȤĮĲĮ Ȗ઼Ȣ ĳȑȡȠȚıĮ[Ȟ] (‘carrying
him to the earth’s ends’)), about which Ocean is wrapped like a band (ʌĮȡૅ
ૅȍțİȚĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠોȚȢ), and thus where the sun rises (esp. Od. 12.3–4, of the
location of Circe’s island: ੖șȚ Ĳૅ ૅǾȠ૨Ȣ ਱ȡȚȖİȞİȓȘȢ / ȠੁțȓĮ țĮ੿ ȤȠȡȠȓ İੁıȚ țĮ੿
ਕȞĲȠȜĮ੿ ૅǾİȜȓȠȚȠ (‘where Dawn’s house and dancing-places are, and the
raising point of the Sun’). ȞĮ૙İ and the general description of the geogra-
phy of the place make it clear that Tithonus has the run of the area, sc.
when his lover is off elsewhere (cf. below); contrast 231, 236. But the loca-
tion at the very end of the world means that he also has no more hope of
escaping his captivity than Ganymede does.
226 nominally refers to the pleasure Tithonus gets from sleeping with
Dawn. But the goddess is imagined at the moment she emerges from their
bed (cf. Il. 11.1–2 = Od. 5.1–2) early in the morning (਱ȡȚȖİȞİȓȘȚ) and ac-
companied by a golden glow conceived as her throne (ȤȡȣıȠșȡȩȞȦȚ; see
218–19 n., and cf. the epithet ਥȪșȡȠȞȠȢ (‘well-throned’), used only of
Dawn, at Il. 8.565; Od. 6.48; 15.495; 17.497; 18.318; 19.342). For the
collocation of adjectives, cf. Od. 23.347–8 (of Athena causing the day to
begin) Į੝Ĳȓțૅ ਕʌૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૨ ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȞ ਱ȡȚȖȑȞİȚĮȞ / ੯ȡıİȞ (‘at once she
roused up the gold-throned, early-born one from Ocean’).
ʌĮȡૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠોȚȢ: an otherwise unattested variant of a cluster of
closely related early epic phrases (mostly line-final): ਥʌૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ
૧ȠȐȢ* (Il. 18.240); ਥʌૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠȐȦȞ / (Il. 3.5); ਕʌૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠȐȦȞ /
(Il. 19.1); ʌĮȡૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȠȐȦȞ / (Od. 22.197); ʌĮȡ੹ ૧ȩȠȞ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ /
(Il. 16.151; Od. 11.21); ਥʌૅ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ૧ȑİșȡĮ / (Il. 23.205; cf. Hes. Th.
695).
228–229 Tithonus now has a full beard (229), and he only loses his claim
to ‘lovely youth’ (225–7) when it begins to go gray (along with his hair,
which he wears long, hanging down over his shoulders, hence țĮĲȑȤȣȞĲȠ /
… ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ). For the sake of the argument, at least, Tithonus thus goes
direct from ਸ਼ȕȘ to the initial stages of ‘ruinous old age’ (224 with n.),
without passing through the intermediary period we would refer to as
250 Commentary
‘adulthood’. For Tithonus’ ‘gray hairs’, cf. Sapph. fr. 58.14 (of ‘Sappho’
herself) Ȝİ૨țĮȓ Ĳૅ ਥȖȑȞȠȞĲȠ ĲȡȓȤİȢ ਥț ȝİȜĮȓĮȞ (‘my hair is white rather than
black’), 22 ʌҕȩҕȜҕȚҕȠҕȞҕ ȖોȡĮȢ (‘gray old age’).
਩șİȚȡĮȚ: first attested here of human hair (as opposed to horse hair, as
in Homer).
The focalization in 229 is easily taken to be Dawn’s, representing how
she saw Tithonus before he began to age (cf. 225–7 n.), and sets up her
abrupt loss of sexual interest in him in 230. The line ought thus almost to
be translated as including a pang of regret, ‘from his once-handsome head
and once-noble beard’, with the jingle țĮȜોȢ ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ İ੝ȘȖİȞȑȠȢ Ĳİ
ȖİȞİȓȠȣ capturing the aesthetic pleasure Tithonus’ appearance generated in
his lover, at least when he was younger.
230–232 At 226 (where see n.), Tithonus’ (main) source of pleasure is said
to be Dawn herself (and thus her bed), but he ‘inhabits’ and must accord-
ingly be free to wander about the entire area. Now, by contrast, the goddess
not only refuses to sleep with him, but keeps him shut up within the house.
The care she bestows on him suggests continuing affection, or at least a
desire that he remain as plump and presentable as possible (cf. on 232
țĮȜȐ below). As he is only now turning gray and is still capable of moving
about on his own (cf. 233–4, 237–8), the restrictions placed on his move-
ments are not easily understood as intended to protect him. Instead, they
must be designed to ensure that no one else sees him (cf. 225–7 n.) in his
diminished state—which dramatically advertises Dawn’s own earlier disas-
trous folly (233–4).
ĲȠ૨ įૅ … İ੝ȞોȢ … ਕʌİȓȤİĲȠ: The bed is Dawn’s rather than Titho-
nus’; but he is the one left alone in it (and cf. 236 with n.). For the expres-
sion, cf. 154 ıોȢ İ੝ȞોȢ ਥʌȚȕȐȢ with n.; Il. 14.206–7 = 305–6.
For ਵĲȠȚ … ȝȑȞ, see 202–4 n.
ʌȩĲȞȚĮ ૅǾȫȢ echoes 223 (where see n.); and see below.
Į੝ĲઁȞ … ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİȞ … / ıȓĲȦȚ Ĳૅ ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȘȚ Ĳİ: Human beings nor-
mally consume bread and the like, while the gods drink nektar and eat
ambrosia (literally ‘immortality stuff’); cf. 205–6 n., 260 (nymphs, alt-
hough doomed eventually to die, eat ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ İੇįĮȡ (‘divine food, immor-
tal food’)) with n.; e.g. Od. 5.196–9 (Calypso serves Odysseus mortal food,
but consumes nektar and ambrosia herself); hAp. 124; Hes. Th. 640. Titho-
nus’ oddly mixed diet thus reflects his unique status as both immortal
(ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȢ) and doomed to grow ever older (220–2); cf. 237–8 n. The verb
is elsewhere always used of children (cf. 115 ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİ*) or animals. To-
gether with the title ʌȩĲȞȚĮ, it brings out Tithonus’ ‘kept’ status and help-
lessness, and Dawn’s absolute power over him.
਩ȤȠȣıĮ … țĮ੿ … įȚįȠ૨ıĮ: A mild zeugma, since ਥȞ੿ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ
਩ȤȠȣıĮ defines the main action (‘she kept him in the house’), while
ਕĲȓĲĮȜȜİȞ and įȚįȠ૨ıĮ are properly parallel and subsidiary to it (‘although

tending him with food and ambrosia, and giving him fine clothing’).
İ੆ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ: cf. 64 with apparatus. The adjective perhaps contains
another trace of Dawn’s focalization, ‘clothing he looked good in’ (viz.
despite his ever-increasing number of gray hairs).
233–236 ʌȐȝʌĮȞ is common in early epic (e.g. Il. 9.435; 13.7; Od. 8.552;
hDem. 310; Hes. Op. 302), but the second syllable elsewhere always re-
mains short (except at line-end).
ıĲȣȖİȡઁȞ țĮĲ੹ ȖોȡĮȢ ਩ʌİȚȖİȞ is modeled on Il. 23.623 ȤĮȜİʌઁȞ țĮĲ੹
ȖોȡĮȢ ਥʌİȓȖİȚ (Achilleus describes why Nestor is unable to compete for a
prize at Patroclus’ funeral games), but with ıĲȣȖİȡȩȞ (‘loathesome’) in
place of the metrically equivalent but less emotionally charged ȤĮȜİʌȩȞ
(‘harsh’). The adjective amounts to a description of Dawn’s motivation in
what follows: unable now to keep Tithonus even moderately presentable
(contrast 228–32 with 230–2 n.) or to face the situation any longer, she
decides to put him out of sight. The metaphor is dead in Homer (‘oppress-
es’), but 234 brings it back to life: Tithonus is ‘weighed down’ so heavily
by old age that he cannot even move a limb. For ıĲȣȖİȡઁȞ … ȖોȡĮȢ, cf.
224 ȖોȡĮȢ ੑȜȠȚȩȞ with n.; 244–6 ȖોȡĮȢ … / … / … ੖ Ĳİ ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ șİȠȓ
ʌİȡ.
234 is modeled closely on Od. 8.298 Ƞ੝įȑ ĲȚ țȚȞોıĮȚ ȝİȜȑȦȞ ਷Ȟ Ƞ੝įૅ
ਕȞĮİ૙ȡĮȚ (of Ares and Aphrodite, caught in Hephaestus’ trap), while the
second half of 236 is drawn more or less direct from Il. 14.169 (Hera with-
draws into her chamber to beautify herself); cf. 58–68 (where the Seduc-
tion of Zeus and Demodocus’ Love-Song of Ares and Aphrodite are both
evoked at length), esp. 60 șȪȡĮȢ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ*, with nn. It is there-
fore tempting to see 235 as a quotation specifically of Il. 14.161 (Hera
decides to seduce Zeus). For the description of the physical effects of old
age, cf. Sapph. fr. 58.15–16 (of the aged ‘Sappho’ herself) ȖȩȞĮ įૅ [Ƞ]੝
ĳȑȡȠȚıȚ, / Ĳ੹ įȒ ʌȠĲĮ ȜĮȓȥȘȡૅ ਩ȠȞ ੕ȡȤȘıșૅ ੅ıĮ ȞİȕȡȓȠȚıȚ (‘my knees,
which were once danced as lightly as a fawn’s, do not support me’); Alcm.
PMG 26.1–2 Ƞ੡ ȝૅ ਩ĲȚ … / Ȗȣ૙Į ĳȑȡȘȞ įȪȞĮĲĮȚ (‘my limbs can no longer
support me’).
ਕȡȓıĲȘ: i.e. for Dawn herself, not for Tithonus. But it is difficult to
call the plan entirely successful in any case. Cf. 237–8 n.
ਥȞ șĮȜȐȝȦȚ țĮĲȑșȘțİ: Because Tithonus no longer has the strength to
move (234), Dawn must carry him from the common area of the house (cf.
231 ਥȞ੿ ȝİȖȐȡȠȚıȚȞ) into a sleeping-chamber (most naturally understood as
containing the bed she refuses to visit any longer in 230) and ‘deposit’ him
there. The process of isolating Tithonus physically that Dawn began in 218
(cf. 227), and that continued even more emphatically after he began to
252 Commentary
show signs of age in 231 (cf. 230–2 n.), is thus complete—or at least as
complete as she can make it (237 with n.).
șȪȡĮȢ įૅ ਥʌȑșȘțİ ĳĮİȚȞȐȢ: sc. ‘and determined never to open them
again’. The second half of 236 follows the goddess out of the chamber in
which she left Tithonus, and the adjective captures the appearance of the
doors from the exterior (as also in 60, where see nn.) after she closes them,
as they reflect back the brilliant light produced by ‘gold-throned Dawn’
(cf. 226 with n.) herself.
237–238 A statement of continuing fact, which concludes but stands out-
side the otherwise essentially ‘historical’ account of the romantic misad-
venture of Dawn and Tithonus (although cf. 223–4 with n., and see below).
ĲȠ૨ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ ĳȦȞ੽ ૧ȑİȚ ਙıʌİĲȠȢ: Aphrodite (and the Hymn-poet) make
no specific reference to the content of Tithonus’ remarks, and perhaps his
garrulity is merely further evidence of his ever-more advanced age. But
237 Ƞ੝įȑ–238 is modeled closely on Od. 11.393–4 (quoted in the first ap-
paratus), which describes the betrayed and bitter (esp. Od. 11.409–12, 424–
34) Agamemnon in the Underworld; and what one would expect Tithonus
to do in any case, is to complain about his lover’s foolishness, which got
him into this dilemma, using words similar to 223–4. Although Dawn has
contrived to avoid the sight of her lover’s ever-increasing physical decrepi-
tude, therefore, she cannot escape his constant (ਙıʌİĲȠȢ cf. hAp. 360
șİıʌİıȓȘ įૅ ਥȞȠʌ੽ ȖȑȞİĲૅ ਙıʌİĲȠȢ) verbal reminders of her mistake and its
consequences. For ૧ȑȦ used of a voice, cf. Il. 1.249; Hes. Th. 39, 84, 97.
For ĲȠ૨ įૅ ਵĲȠȚ, cf. 230*. The p-scribe mistook the point of the first clause
and wrote Ƞ੡ĲȠȚ for ਵĲȠȚ, as if what was meant was that both Tithonus’
voice and his physical strength failed him.
Ƞ੝įૅ ਩ĲȚ ț૙țȣȢ / țĲȜ can be taken to refer back to the situation de-
scribed in 234, seen now as a permanent state of affairs: Tithonus is too old
to move. But the fact that Dawn no longer has physical contact with her
lover (see above) means that that she must have stopped feeding him (cf.
232 with n.) at the same time she shut him up in his chamber, and his ulti-
mate and on-going complete loss of vigor must simultaneously be under-
stood as a consequence of this further deprivation.
Ƞ੆Ș ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ implies, in a mournfully retrospective fashion, what
has not been expressly said before, that at the moment Dawn kidnapped
Tithonus, he was not just good-looking (cf. 229 with n.) but physically
robust as well (and cf. 241 İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ įȑȝĮȢ Ĳİ, which can plausibly be taken
to refer to a similar distinction).
ਥȞ੿ ȖȞĮȝʌĲȠ૙ıȚ ȝȑȜİııȚȞ: Unlike in Od. 11.394* (above), where Ag-
amemnon’s limbs are merely ‘flexible’, i.e. supple and strong (cf. Od.
13.398* = 430*; 21.283* (all of Odysseus)), Tithonus’ are gnarled with
extreme old age, like Nestor’s at Il. 11.669* and Priam’s at Il. 24.359*.
According to a scholium on Il. 3.151, Hellanicus of Lesbos (FGrH 4 F

140; 5th century BCE) claimed that when Tithonus grew old (ȝĮțȡ૵Ț …
ȕȓȦȚ įĮʌĮȞȘșȑȞĲȠȢ ਥțİȓȞȠȣ), his lover—whom the scholium, perhaps gar-
bling its source, refers to as ‘Day’ (૽ǾȝȑȡĮ) rather than ‘Dawn’—
transformed him into a cicada, a creature with an out-sized ‘voice’ and
what might reasonably be described as ‘bent limbs’. But (despite Kakridis
(1930) 25–38) nothing in the Hymn obviously hints that such a story is in
the background, and neither do any of the other fragmentary early sources,
not all of which even agree that matters ended badly for Tithonus (see 218–
38 n.); see van der Eck (1978) ad loc.; van der Ben (1986) 28–9. Hellan-
icus’ tale is thus better understood as a separate variant of the tale with
only a limited affiliation to the one presented here.
239–246 240 = 221, which describes the misguided request by Dawn that
led to the ruin of her lover Tithonus and her own discomfiture (cf. 237–8
n.). But after 233–4 and 236–8 in particular, ਕșȐȞĮĲȩȞ Ĳૅ İੇȞĮȚ țĮ੿ ȗȫİȚȞ
ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ takes on a new—and disconcerting—resonance (‘to be
unable to die, and to instead live on and on forever’). At 223–4, Aphrodite
calls Dawn a fool for not having had the wit to ask Zeus for eternal youth
for her lover, the implication being that if he granted one request, he would
also have granted the other. But now she insists that, although she would
be delighted to have Anchises as her lover in perpetuity, and even to be
called his wife, his only options are to grow old and thus undesirable
(dooming their relationship in advance), or to suffer Tithonus’ fate (some-
thing she refuses to allow). The better option that she insisted (in retro-
spect) was available to Dawn, in other words, is unavailable to Aphrodite
herself—at least as she presents the situation, for why could she not have
repeated Dawn’s experiment, with the flaw in the plan corrected? None of
this would be a problem, if 241 followed directly after e.g. 195. But as it is,
Aphrodite’s account of the difficulties she and Anchises face suggests (a)
deliberate evasion: she does not want him for her eternal companion, but
rather than saying so directly, she treats the story of Tithonus and Dawn as
proving something it does not; (b) tacit recognition that Dawn’s fundamen-
tal problem was not her own shortsightedness but the malevolence of Zeus
(cf. 222 n.), meaning that even if the king of the gods agrees to consider a
cognate request from Aphrodite on Anchises’ behalf (something 239–40
takes for granted), even the most thoughtful proposal will be baffled in one
way or another, leaving the lovers—and the mortal member of the pair in
particular—worse off than before; or (c) some fundamental mythic logic
(that human beings are inevitably doomed to die (thus Smith (1981a) be-
low), or that human domestic life is impossible outside the constraints of
mortality) that the poet declines to violate, requiring an otherwise illogical
turn in the argument attributed to his central character. See in general Pod-
254 Commentary
bielski (1971) 71–3; Smith (1981a) 87–90; van der Ben (1986) 29–30;
Clay (1989) 189–91 (who opts for a solution very similar to (b) above);
Bergren (1989) 33–5 (Aphrodite’s silence on the possibility of appealing to
Zeus for immortality for Anchises marks her acceptance of Zeus’ authority
over her); Walcot (1991) 150–1.
239 ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ: ‘among the (genuine) immortals’, i.e. those who do
not age; but also by extension ‘in heaven’, since were Aphrodite to form a
permanent alliance with Anchises, she would presumably carry him off
there with her, as Zeus did with Ganymede (204), at least to visit (cf. 242–
3 n.), his permanent residence in the latter case perhaps being her temple in
Paphos (58–9 with n.), like Tithonus’ with Dawn in her house ‘at the ends
of the earth’ (227 with n.).
241 ĲȠȚȠ૨ĲȠȢ ਥઅȞ İੇįȩȢ Ĳİ įȑȝĮȢ Ĳİ: i.e. ‘such as you are now’ (not ‘such
as you would be, were you to share Tithonus’ fate’). For Aphrodite’s admi-
ration of Anchises’ physical appearance, see 55–7; and cf. 237–8 n. on Ƞ੆Ș
ʌȐȡȠȢ ਩ıțİȞ.
242–243 ਲȝȑĲİȡȩȢ Ĳİ ʌȩıȚȢ țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅ȘȢ: sc. by the other gods,
whose actions and attitudes provide the context in which Aphrodite con-
sistently imagines herself operating (esp. 246–53, and cf. 239 n.). ʌȩıȚȢ
țİțȜȘȝȑȞȠȢ İ੅ȘȢ is modeled on the second half of Od. 6.244 (Nausicaa
fantasizes about the handsome stranger to her slave-girls; quoted in the first
apparatus) and thus momentarily evokes the flirtatious atmosphere of An-
chises’ initial speech to Aphrodite in 91–106 (where see n.), before she
slams the door shut to all such possibilities in 244–6. Cf. 252–5 n. on
ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ. So too ਙȤȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪʌĲȠȚ echoes but reverses
Il. 14.294 (Zeus catches his first glimpse of the newly beautified Hera; see
also 38 with n.) ਩ȡȠȢ ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳȚțȐȜȣȥİȞ / (‘desire enwrapped
his subtle mind’), making it clear that the current tale of seduction, by con-
trast, has ended unhappily (contrast 58–68 with n.).
ʌȣțȚȞ੹Ȣ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ: The adjective implies that—whatever we are to make
of her motivations, or lack thereof—Aphrodite has thought the situation
through rationally and at length, as the careful analysis of the consequences
of her actions that follows in 244–55 makes clear; cf. 239–46 n., 247–55 n.
243–255 At 199–200, Aphrodite mentions the ਙȤȠȢ she feels as a conse-
quence of ‘falling into’ Anchises’ bed, but she goes on there to offer a long
explanation of how this was possible (200–38) rather than describing why
what she has done causes her grief. In 244–55 she returns to the theme of
her ਙȤȠȢ and articulates three interconnected reasons for it: Anchises is
doomed to grow old, so that a long-term relationship between them is im-
possible (244–6; for the peculiarity of this complaint, see 239–46 n.); the
male gods in particular will no longer pay attention to her jibes about being
forced to sleep with mortal women, since Aphrodite herself has now done
something similar (247–54); and she is pregnant (255). ਙȤȠȢ appears *
also at e.g. Il. 2.171; 8.124 = 316 ૠǼțĲȠȡĮ įૅ ĮੁȞઁȞ ਙȤȠȢ ʌȪțĮıİ
ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਱ȞȚȩȤȠȚȠ (‘terrible grief for his charioteer overwhelmed Hector’s
subtle mind’) 17.83 ૠǼțĲȠȡĮ įૅ ĮੁȞઁȞ ਙȤȠȢ ʌȪțĮıİ ĳȡȑȞĮȢ ਕȝĳ੿
ȝİȜĮȓȞĮȢ (‘terrible grief overwhelmed Hector’s dark mind’); Od. 21.249,
412.
244–246 ĲȐȤĮ is focalized by Aphrodite—Anchises will grow old ‘soon’
by divine standards, not by human ones—and ੒ȝȠȓȚȠȞ (‘indiscriminate’)
and ȞȘȜİȚȑȢ (‘pitiless’; a lengthened form of the adjective attested else-
where in early epic only at Hes. Th. 770) are best understood that way as
well: who a person is or what he deserves, makes no difference to ȖોȡĮȢ,
and no amount of special pleading or manuevering will allow Aphrodite to
exempt her lovely Anchises from it. Cf. 239–46 n., 247–8 n.; Il. 4.315
(Agamemnon speaking to Nestor) ਕȜȜȐ ıİ ȖોȡĮȢ ĲİȓȡİȚ ੒ȝȠȓȚȠȞ (‘but in-
discriminate old age wears you out’); Od. 3.236 ਕȜȜૅ ਷ ĲȠȚ șȐȞĮĲȠȞ
ȝ੻Ȟ ੒ȝȠȓȚȠȞ Ƞ੝į੻ șİȠȓ ʌİȡ / țĮ੿ ĳȓȜȦȚ ਕȞįȡ੿ įȪȞĮȞĲĮȚ ਕȜĮȜțȑȝİȞ,
੒ʌʌȩĲİ țİȞ įȒ / ȝȠ૙ȡૅ ੑȜȠ੽ țĮșȑȜȘȚıȚ ĲĮȞȘȜİȖȑȠȢ șĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ (‘But in
fact not even the gods are able to protect a man they love from indiscrimi-
nate death, when the miserable fate of woe-filled death takes hold of him’).
Ĳȩ Ĳૅ ਩ʌİȚĲĮ ʌĮȡȓıĲĮĲĮȚ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚıȚȞ amounts to a gloss on this
idea—(all) human beings eventually grow old (for the generalizing ‘epic’
Ĳİ, cf. 95 with n., 246; for uncial ȉ corrupted to ī, cf. 110 with n.)—but
also alters the focalization of what follows in the first half of 246: old age
is Ƞ੝ȜȩȝİȞȠȞ and țĮȝĮĲȘȡȩȞ not for the gods (who never experience it)
but for human beings (who do). What the gods loathe (੖ Ĳİ ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ
șİȠȓ ʌİȡ) is accordingly not so much old age in the abstract, as its concrete
manifestation in time-worn—and implicitly unattractive—mortal bodies.
Put more directly, once Anchises has his first few gray hairs, Aphrodite
will feel at best about him the way Dawn did about Tithonus in 228–32; cf.
233 ıĲȣȖİȡઁȞ … ȖોȡĮȢ with n. ĲȐȤĮ (Mabsp) and țĮĲ੹ (fb) seem to
have been offered as alternative readings in Ȍ (which probably drew them
both direct from ȍ). The p-scribe (like the M-scribe) chose ĲȐȤĮ, whereas
the Ĭ-scribe preserved both variants; and the various descendants of Ĭ
adopted one reading or the other (ĲȐȤĮ a : țĮĲ੹ f), or retained both (țĮĲ੹,
ĲȐȤĮs b).
ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪȥİȚ is a pointed echo of ਕȝĳȚțĮȜȪʌĲȠȚ* in 243: Aphrodite is
wrapped in grief, whereas Anchises will soon be wrapped—far more liter-
ally (cf. 223–4 n.)—in old age.
For the sense of ੒ȝȠȓȚȠȞ (obscure already in antiquity), cf. Atha-
nassakis (1976) 4–7; Russo on Od. 18.264.
256 Commentary
ȞȘȜİȚȑȢ: a metrically convenient form of ȞȘȜİȒȢ, attested elsewhere in

early epic only at Hes. Th. 770 ȞȘȜİȚȒȢ* (of Cerberus).
For ʌĮȡȓıĲĮĲĮȚ, cf. 269 ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȘȚ with n.; LfgrE s. ੆ıĲȘȝȚ B I B
9aȕ.
Ƞ੝ȜȩȝİȞȠȞ: applied to ȖોȡĮȢ (or īોȡĮȢ) also at Hes. Th. 225; Thgn.
272, 768, 1012.
țĮȝĮĲȘȡȩȞ: first attested here; subsequently at Hdt. iv.135.1 (in the
sense ‘sick’); Ar. Lys. 542 (lyric); and in the same form and sedes at A.R.
2.87 (presumably as an epic rarity).
੖ Ĳİ ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ șİȠȓ ʌİȡ: adapted from the formular phrase ĲȐ Ĳİ
ıĲȣȖȑȠȣıȚ șİȠȓ ʌİȡ, used elsewhere in early epic to refer to the Underworld
(Il. 20.65*) or Tartarus (Hes. Th. 810*, cf. 739).
247–255 Aphrodite never specifies the content of the verbal abuse
(੕ȞİȚįȠȢ) she expects to hear from the other gods (247–8), but it must be
connected more or less directly with what she says in 255: she slept with a
mortal and got pregnant by him. This, after all, is mutatis mutandis what
she used to say to them routinely (48–52 with nn.). (But see below; and
contrast 253 ਥʌİȓ–254, which represent a serious misunderstanding of the
situation.) The relative clause that begins with Ƞ੄ ʌȡȓȞ in 249 and ends
with ĲȐȡȕİıțȠȞ in 251 nominally offers a more complete description of
the gods whose abuse Aphrodite now fears, while ĮੈȢ … / … ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ in
249–50 specifies which of her plots (ȝȒĲȚįĮȢ) are in question. But the
more significant function of the two clauses taken together is to explain
why the other Olympians were previously not as free to talk about her as
they will be now. Before this, they feared what Aphrodite could make them
do and—at least as important—what she said to others about the behavior
she forced upon them; the implication is that they accordingly bit their
tongues, no matter how she acted or what she said. But now she can no
longer speak as freely as she once could, for she has done what she has
always mocked others for (252–5), and as a consequence her power over
the other gods is broken. The crucial point in the argument is thus 252–3
Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ į੽ Ƞ੝țȑĲȚ ȝȠȚ ıĲȩȝĮ ȤİȓıİĲĮȚ ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ / ĲȠ૨ĲȠ ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ,
and the question of Aphrodite’s meaning turns on the referent of ĲȠ૨ĲȠ. If
the word points back to ʌȐȞĲĮȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥȝઁȞ įȐȝȞĮıțİ ȞȩȘȝĮ in 251, the con-
sequence of sleeping with Anchises, as she describes it, is that she will no
longer be able to coerce the Olympians into having sex with mortal wom-
en, costing her her ground for mocking them. But that was not Zeus’ intent
in arranging for Aphrodite to fall in love with Anchises in the first case (cf.
47–52), nor does anything that follows suggest that her absolute universal
power over sexuality, as the prologue (esp. 2–6) describes it, has been
altered as a result of the events described in the Hymn. If, therefore, gods
no longer sleep with human beings in the time of the poet and the external
audience, as they once supposedly did before the Trojan War, that cannot
be because Aphrodite has lost the power to make them do so. Instead, she
no longer has any motivation to exercise her power in that way, for the fun
has gone out of the game (note the limiting clause İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ in 38, whose
significance becomes clear only now, in retrospect): she can no longer
mock the other Olympians when she compels them to sleep with mortal
creatures and have mortal children; and that is what her mouth will no
longer open wide to say. Cf. Pelliccia (1985) 150–2; van der Ben (1986)
30–2, followed closely by Clay (1989) 166, 169–70, 192–3; Bergren
(1989) 35–7. In any case, the fact that Aphrodite has had sex with a mortal
matters less than what it means for her power—and how she has thrown it
away.
As Aphrodite describes the situation, her power over the other gods has
a fundamentally intellectual basis, as does her recent failure. Her ȞȩȘȝĮ, as
manifested in her ȝȒĲȚįİȢ, allows her to make the male Olympians sleep
with mortal women (249–51), while having sex with Anchises was a result
of ਙĲȘ (253 ਕȐıșȘȞ), which made her behave in ways her ȞȠ૨Ȣ would not
previously have allowed (254 ਕʌİʌȜȐȖȤșȘȞ … ȞȩȠȚȠ).
247–248 ȝȑȖ(Į) is not in the Homeric original (quoted below) and repre-
sents Aphrodite’s own focalization: the reproach as she imagines it will be
enormous, just as it will supposedly go on constantly (ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ
įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ), as if the other gods had nothing to do with their time but talk to
and about her.
੕ȞİȚįȠȢ … / ਩ııİĲĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ is modeled on Il.
16.498–9, where Sarpedon, having been mortally wounded by Patroclus in
the battle that culminates in Patroclus’ death, urges Glaucus to fight for his
body: ੕ȞİȚįȠȢ / ਩ııȠȝĮȚ ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ (‘I will be a cause of
abuse forever and constantly’). Given that general context, İ੆ȞİțĮ ıİ૙Ƞ can
be taken to evoke Il. 6.524–5*, where Hector notes that the other Trojans
speak badly of Paris for his reluctance to commit himself wholeheartedly
to the war, and places the blame for everything that has happened to their
city squarely on his brother’s shoulders: ਫ਼ʌ੻ȡ ıȑșİȞ Į੅ıȤİૅ ਕțȠȪȦ /
ʌȡઁȢ ȉȡȫȦȞ, Ƞ੄ ਩ȤȠȣıȚ ʌȠȜઃȞ ʌȩȞȠȞ İ੆ȞİțĮ ıİ૙Ƞ (‘I hear ugly re-
marks about you from the Trojans, who have enormous trouble on your
account’).
ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ sets Aphrodite’s concerns once again in the
context of divine society (cf. 242–3 n., 253), and implicitly recalls the
problem of human beings’ allegedly inescapable mortality discussed in
241–6. But the phrase also bolsters the sense of ਵȝĮĲĮ ʌȐȞĲĮ įȚĮȝʌİȡȑȢ:
because the gods are immortal, their abuse can be imagined as genuinely
going on and on, day after day, for all time. Ȍ’s ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚȞ is
a good epic phrase (e.g. Il. 21.500; Od. 8.348; Hes. Th. 394; hDem. 444;
258 Commentary
hAp. 206)—hence presumably its intrusion here—but does not fit the me-
ter.
249–251 The action described is all set emphatically in the past, making it
clear that none of this is likely ever to happen again.
ਥȝȠઃȢ ੑȐȡȠȣȢ evokes Hes. Th. 205*–6, where the newly-born Aphro-
dite’s realm is described as ʌĮȡșİȞȓȠȣȢ Ĳૅ ੑȐȡȠȣȢ ȝİȚįȒȝĮĲȐ Ĳૅ ਥȟĮʌȐĲĮȢ
Ĳİ / ĲȑȡȥȚȞ Ĳİ ȖȜȣțİȡ੽Ȟ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȐ Ĳİ ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȘȞ Ĳİ (‘the whispers of unmar-
ried girls, their smiles and tricks, and pleasure, sweet lovemaking and
joy’). Despite West on Hes. Th. 205, however, the conversations in ques-
tion here are not those that go on between lovers but (hysteron-proteron)
those Aphrodite has with the other gods, maliciously detailing her latest
successes with her plots (ȝȒĲȚįĮȢ) to get male Olympians into bed with
mortal women, or perhaps explaining to them how they can accomplish the
projects she has put into their minds. Cf. 48–52 with nn. ĮੈȢ (referring back
to the plots alone) rather than ȠੈȢ (referring to both the conversations and
the plots) is accordingly used as the relative.
The MSS’s ȝȒĲȚĮȢ (supposedly from third-declension ȝોĲȚȢ) is a non-
form which must be emended to the metrically identical ȝȒĲȚįĮȢ, uncial ǻ
having been accidentally omitted before ǹ and the odd—because wrong—
accusative plural having been faithfully transmitted thereafter as an appar-
ent rarity.
250 echoes 50 (where see n., and cf. 38–9 n. on the systematic contrast
‘mortal vs. immortal’). But here the claim is both expanded (via the addi-
tion of ʌȐȞĲĮȢ at the end of 249) and made more specific (vs. the generic
boast quoted in 50–2). Perhaps more important, Aphrodite’s lack of refer-
ence to her ability to cause goddesses to take male mortal lovers (contrast
52) genders not only her description of her historical relationship with the
other Olympians but also, in retrospect, the future confrontations envi-
sioned in 247–8. As she tells the story here, she exercised power over and
subsequently humiliated only male gods, and it must accordingly be their
words in particular she fears.
For ıȣȞȑȝİȚȟİ in place of the metrically equivalent paradosis ıȣȞȑȝȚȟİ,
see 38–9 n.
ʌȐȞĲĮȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥȝઁȞ įȐȝȞĮıțİ ȞȩȘȝĮ explains not why the male Olym-
pians used to live in fear (ĲȐȡȕİıțȠȞ) of Aphrodite in general, but why
they were concerned about her plots (ȝȒĲȚįĮȢ) in particular, hence the
pointed echo of ʌȐȞĲĮȢ at the end of 249. The relative clause in 249–50
explains the practical effect of Aphrodite’s intrigues, whereas the ȖȐȡ-
clause describes the means by which they operated: because her intelli-
gence gave her dominion over the other gods, she could use her plots to
force them to behave as she wanted. For įĮȝȞȐȦ and its cognates in similar
contexts, see 2–3 n. Neither iterative is attested elsewhere.
252–254 249–51 is an explanatory digression after the concrete if general-

ized scene in the company of (all) the gods imagined in 247–8. ȝİĲૅ
ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ serves to specify that the action described in Ȟ૨Ȟ įȑ țĲȜ. again
takes place in the divine residence in heaven, although in this case we learn
what will not be said there as a consequence of Aphrodite’s adventure with
Anchises, rather than what will.
ıĲȩȝĮ ȤİȓıİĲĮȚ (with the verb taken to be an otherwise unattested fu-
ture from ȤȐıțȦ, ‘gape wide’, i.e. ‘stand open’, as at Il. 16.350, 409;
20.168; Od. 12.350; cf. Od. 18.17*; for other future forms seemingly in-
vented by the Hymn-poet, cf. 123, 197) is Martin’s emendation of the
MSS’s nonsensical ıĲȠȞĮȤȒıİĲĮȚ, which combines visual (ȃ for Ȃ) and
aural (Ș for İȚ) errors. That in post-Homeric usage ȤȐıțȦ more often
means ‘gape stupidly’ (e.g. Semon. fr. 7.110 West2; Sol. fr. 13.36 West2;
Ar. Ach. 10; Eq. 651) is—despite Càssola (1975)—no argument against the
emendation; cf. A. Ag. 920; S. Ai. 1227; Ar. V. 342, in all of which the
sense is ‘talk big, talk nonsense’ vel sim. Matthiae’s ıĲȩȝĮ ĲȜȒıİĲĮȚ (ad-
vocated for by Smith (1979) 34–5, and printed by Càssola (1975), Faulkner
(2008), and Richardson (2010)) is further from the paradosis; the idea of a
mouth speaking independently is anomalous; and the tone of the verb is too
condemnatory for Aphrodite to use of her own behavior. See also Kamer-
beek (1967) 392–3, advocating for Buttmann’s ıĲȩȝૅ ਕȤȒıİĲĮȚ (< ਕȤȑȦ).
ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ (epexegetic with ȤİȓıİĲĮȚ), recalls ȞȩȘȝĮ at the end of
251, while simultaneously evoking Od. 6.66* (Nausicaa’s shyness before
her father in the events leading up her encounter with Odysseus on the
beach; cf. 91–106 n., 242–3 n.) Į੅įİĲȠ Ȗ੹ȡ șĮȜİȡઁȞ ȖȐȝȠȞ ਥȟȠȞȠȝોȞĮȚ /
(‘for she was ashamed to refer explicitly to her fertile marriage’).
The distraught ȝȐȜĮ ʌȠȜȜȩȞ and ıȤȑĲȜȚȠȞ, Ƞ੝ț ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȩȞ (all adver-
bial) represent Aphrodite’s own perspective on the action: for her—
although not for anyone else—everything that has happened is a great dis-
aster. Aphrodite presents herself in the passive (ਕȐıșȘȞ / …, ਕʌİʌȜȐȖȤșȘȞ
į੻ ȞȩȠȚȠ) and thus as the victim. But on her telling of the story, impersonal,
motiveless forces damaged her ability to think clearly, causing her to make
choices that have had terrible—but otherwise quite foreseeable—
consequences (255 with n.); there is no recognition that her desire for An-
chises was implanted in her by Zeus (contrast the overall narrator at 45–
53). Cf. de Jong (1989) 24.
ȝȐȜĮ ʌȠȜȜȩȞ is an occasional metri gratia variant (e.g. Il. 9.398;
23.832; Od. 3.121) of the more common ȝȐȜĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ (e.g. Il. 1.156; Od.
1.1; 13.6; cf. Hes. Op. 697), but is not attested in this sedes elsewhere in
early epic.
ʌȠȜȜઁȞ ਕȐıșȘȞ is an echo of the story of the deception of Zeus by He-
ra in connection with the births of Heracles and Eurystheus at Il. 19.113*.
260 Commentary
ıȤȑĲȜȚȠȞ describes the impression the ਙĲȘ that afflicted Aphrodite has
made on her, Ƞ੝ț ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȩȞ the judgment that impression evokes. Ƞ੝ț
ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȩȞ (cf. Od. 19.260 = 597 = 23.19; Hes. Th. 148 (all line-final); fr.
33a.18 Ƞ੝ț ੑȞȠȝĮıĲȐ*) is Martin’s emendation of the MSS’s metrically
deficient and nonsensical Ƞ੝ț ੑȞȩĲĮĲȠȞ, and is better than Clarke’s Ƞ੝ț
ੑȞȠĲĮıĲȩȞ (< ੑȞȠĲȐȗȦ, ‘blame, abominate’ (Hes. Op. 258; hHerm. 30); the
adjective is not attested elsewhere), which ought to mean ‘not blamed’ (i.e.
‘to which I impute no fault’; precisely the wrong sense) rather than ‘not to
be made light of, serious’ (Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1963)). Cf. Smith
(1979) 36–7.
255 At 196–9, Aphrodite informs Anchises that he will eventually have a
son, whose name will recall her own ‘terrible grief’ (ĮੁȞઁȞ / … ਙȤȠȢ; cf.
243 ਙȤȠȢ with n.) at having slept with him. The Hymn’s external audience
must have been aware that Aphrodite herself was Aeneas’ mother, given
the existence of a passage of the Iliad (quoted below) that says exactly that,
while at Od. 11.249–50 the river-god Enipus tells Tyro that she can be sure
that she will bear him children, since that they have slept together, for Ƞ੝ț
ਕʌȠĳȫȜȚȠȚ İ੝ȞĮȓ / ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ (‘sexual encounters with immortals are
never unproductive’). But all Anchises has been told explicitly is that his
line will continue, while the absence of any mention of Dawn’s sons
Memnon and Emathion from the extended account of her relationship with
Tithonus at 218–38 (where see n.) has made the matter of offspring appear
to lie outside the standard trajectory of such tales, especially given the way
Aphrodite interprets this one in 239–46: as an exploration of the intercon-
nected problems of old age, mortality, and immortality, with no sense of
intergenerational implications. The fact that Aphrodite is pregnant and will
be Aeneas’ mother has thus been reserved as a surprise for Anchises, at
least; and most of the rest of the poem consists of an exploration of the
implications of that fact for him and his son (256–90). Cf. 281–90 n.
ʌĮ૙įĮ įૅ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȗȫȞȘȚ ਥșȑȝȘȞ: Whatever the root cause of her behavior
(253–4 with n.), Aphrodite takes full responsibility—or blame—for her
situation: she got herself pregnant. Cf. 282 with n. For the expression (at-
tested nowhere in early epic outside of the Hymn), cf. also A. Ch. 992
ĲȑțȞȦȞ ਵȞİȖțૅ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȗȫȞȘȞ ȕȐȡȠȢ (‘she bore the weight of children beneath
her belt’); Eu. 607–8 ıૅ ਩șȡİȥİȞ ਩ȞĲȠȢ … / ȗȫȞȘȢ (‘she brought you up
within her belt’); E. Hec. 762 ĲȠ૨ĲȩȞ ʌȠĲૅ ਩ĲİțȠȞ țਙĳİȡȠȞ ȗȫȞȘȢ ੢ʌȠ (‘I
bore this boy, once upon a time, and carried him beneath my belt’). But the
image in the Hymn is bolder than that in the later tragic examples, since
there the child has implicitly come into substantial physical being before its
mother is imagined as carrying or nourishing it (note esp. A. Ch. 992 ‘the
weight of children’), whereas here the initial moment of conception itself is
figured as an abrupt physical deposit of Aeneas within Aphrodite’s belly.
The hiatus ȗȫȞȘȚ ਥșȑȝȘȞ is mitigated by caesura. For the ȗȫȞȘ, see 162–5
n.
ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ is borrowed from Il. 2.820–1* (Aeneas) ĲઁȞ ਫ਼ʌૅ
ਝȖȤȓıȘȚ Ĳȑțİ į૙ૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘ, / ੍įȘȢ ਥȞ țȞȘȝȠ૙ıȚ șİ੹ ȕȡȠĲ૵Ț İ੝ȞȘșİ૙ıĮ
(‘whom bright Aphrodite bore to Anchises, after sleeping with him on the
flanks of Mount Ida, a goddess with a mortal’), although there the empha-
sis is on the contrast between Aphrodite’s status as a goddess and An-
chises’ mortality.
256 In 257–75, Aphrodite reports that Aeneas will be raised by the local
nymphs rather than by his mother (cf. 274–5 n.). She similarly absents
herself, on the narrative level, from his birth here, moving him direct from
her belly (256) into the sunlight and the hands of his nurses.
Aphrodite uses the phrase ĲઁȞ ȝȑȞ, ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ repeatedly in this
passage (also 274, 278, in both cases without the comma, on which see
below; attested nowhere else in early epic, although cf. Od. 4.414 ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ
ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲĮ*) to articulate the temporal and logical structure of her
description of the course of the earliest phase of Aeneas’ life and relation-
ship with Anchises.
੅įȘȚ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ: ‘Seeing the light of the sun’ is also used via synec-
doche to refer to the moment of birth at hAp. 71 ȝ੽ ੒ʌȩĲૅ ਗȞ Ĳઁ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ
੅įȘȚ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ (‘lest when he first sees the light of the sun’). But far
more often in early epic, variants of the phrase mean ‘be alive’ generally,
and thus appear with a present rather than an aorist form of the verb, as in
105. In any case, seeing the sun’s light—and thus eventually losing sight of
it—is a mark of mortal rather than immortal existence: like his father, but
unlike his mother, Aeneas is doomed to die. Cf. 272 with n. (ĳȐȠȢ might
instead be treated as the subject of ੅įȘȚ. But this would be an odd expres-
sion, and it is easier to take Aeneas as the subject of the verb and ĳȐȠȢ as
its object, and to punctuate after ȝȑȞ, so that ĲȩȞ is offered proleptically as
the object of șȡȑȥȠȣıȚȞ in 257, where it is resumed in ȝȚȞ.)
257–258 257 is resumed in 273, 258–72 being in one sense digressive (see
259–72 n.).
ȞȪȝĳĮȚ ȝȚȞ șȡȑȥȠȣıȚȞ: For nymphs as surrogate mothers for the chil-
dren of gods, cf. Hes. Th. 346–8 with West ad loc.; h. 26.3–6 (Dionysus
raised by the nymphs of Mount Nysa įİȟȐȝİȞĮȚ țȩȜʌȠȚıȚ (‘after they re-
ceived him to their bosoms’); cf. 262–3 n.); and see in general Jeanmaire
(1933) 283–96. For nymphs generally, see 97–9 n.
The adjectives in 257 identify two key attributes of the nymphs as
Aphrodite describes them below: they inhabit—and thus sleep in—
mountains (ੑȡİıț૵ȚȠȚ, apparently < ੕ȡȠȢ + țİ૙ȝĮȚ), including Mount Ida
(258, 266; cf. Od. 6.103–5), and they have large breasts (ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ; cf.
262 Commentary
hDem. 5 țȠȪȡȘȚıȚ ıઃȞ ૅȍțİĮȞȠ૨ ȕĮșȣțȩȜʌȠȚȢ (‘with the deep-bosomed

daughters of Oceanos’), meaning that they are sexually attractive (cf. 262–
3 with n.), but also that they have a deep bosom in which to nestle a small
child securely (e.g. Il. 6.400, 483; hDem. 187, 231, 238, 286; h. 26.4; Il.
parv. fr. 21.3, p. 81 Bernabé). ੑȡİıț૵ȚȠȢ is used elsewhere in early epic
only of wild beasts (Od. 9.155; hHerm. 42; h. 19.43) and centaurs (Il.
1.268; Hes. fr. 209.5); but cf. Il. 6.420 ȞȪȝĳĮȚ ੑȡİıĲȚȐįİȢ (‘mountain
nymphs’); Od. 6.123 ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ, Į੄ ਩ȤȠȣıૅ ੑȡȑȦȞ ĮੁʌİȚȞ੹ țȐȡȘȞĮ (‘of the
nymphs, who inhabit the steeps mountain-summits’); Hes. Th. 129–30
Ƞ੡ȡİĮ ȝĮțȡȐ, șİ઼Ȟ ȤĮȡȓİȞĲĮȢ ਥȞĮȪȜȠȣȢ / ȞȣȝĳȑȦȞ, Į੄ ȞĮȓȠȣıȚȞ ਕȞૅ Ƞ੡ȡİĮ
ȕȘııȒİȞĲĮ (‘the immense mountains, lovely dwelling-places of the nymph
goddesses, who live among the glen-filled mountains); fr. 123.1 Ƞ੡ȡİȚĮȚ
ȞȪȝĳĮȚ (‘mountain nymphs’); h. 19.19 ȞȪȝĳĮȚ ੑȡİıĲȚȐįİȢ (‘mountain
nymphs’). 258 amounts to a gloss on the word.
Į੄ Ĳȩįİ ȞĮȚİĲȐȠȣıȚȞ țĲȜ: Aphrodite could easily give birth to Aeneas
anywhere. But the fact that specifically Idaean nymphs will raise him
means not only that he will grow up in his native country, but that it will be
easy to transfer control of him to Anchises once he is old enough to leave
his nurses (274–5 with nn.). For the nymphs’ specific place of residence on
Mount Ida, cf. 262–3 n.
੕ȡȠȢ ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİ is borrowed from Hes. Th. 2 (of the Heliconi-
an Muses) Į੆ șૅ ૽ǼȜȚț૵ȞȠȢ ਩ȤȠȣıȚȞ ੕ȡȠȢ ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİ (‘who inhabit
the lofty, sacred peak of Helicon’), where the adjectives are focalized by a
devotee of the goddesses; cf. 260 n. on įȘȡȩȞ. Contrast 285 (identical to
258 except that the mountain is described as ‘forest-clad’) with n., and note
the intrusive [98], seemingly modeled on these verses.
259–272 might easily have been omitted (cf. 257–8 initial n.), and in this
way the verses resemble the embedded hymns in honor of Athena, Arte-
mis, Hestia, and Hera at 8–32, 41–4. See in general Podbielski (1971) 75–
7; Smith (1981a) 92–5; Clay (1989) 193–6.
259 The point of Į੆ ૧ૅ Ƞ੡Ĳİ țĲȜ. is that nymphs represent an intermediary
class between immortals and mortals, in that they live an exceptionally
long time but not forever (260–72 with nn.; and note the distinction be-
tween ‘gods’, on the one hand, and rivers and nymphs, on the other, drawn
at Il. 20.49), making them ideal figures to handle the transfer of Aeneas
from his divine mother to his human father.
ਪʌȠȞĲĮȚ (literally ‘follow’; * at e.g. Il. 15.204; Od. 3.363, 376; 15.262)
must mean ‘belong to’ the groups defined by the datives. LfgrE s.v. B 4c
compares Hes. Th. 268* (the Harpies) Į੆ ૧ૅ ਕȞȑȝȦȞ ʌȞȠȚોȚıȚ țĮ੿ ȠੁȦȞȠ૙Ȣ
ਚȝૅ ਪʌȠȞĲĮȚ (‘who follow the gusts of the winds and the birds’); but there
the sense must be the common ‘accompany, keep pace with’ (LfgrE s.v. B
1ȕa), as ੩țİȓȘȚȢ ʌĲİȡȪȖİııȚ (‘with their swift wings’) at the beginning of

the next line makes clear.
260–263 A catalogue of ways in which the nymphs, while not immortal,
are closer to gods than to human beings (cf. 259, and contrast 264–72 with
nn.).
260 įȘȡઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ȗȫȠȣıȚ: I.e. in comparison to a human being, rather than to
an Olympian; although Aphrodite is speaking, the focalization is distinctly
mortal. For the idea, cf. Hes. fr. 304 (nymphs live ten times as long as a
phoenix, and many many times as long as a human being); Paus. x.31.10
(poets say that the nymphs live a long time but are not exempt from death).
ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ İੇįĮȡ ਩įȠȣıȚ: Eating ambrosia does not make one im-
mortal, as the fact that the nymphs eventually die (269–72) makes clear,
just as being cut off from ambrosia cannot make a god die, although it can
weaken him or her (Hes. Th. 796–8, cf. 639–41). That eating ambrosia
keeps one strong or helps hold the aging process at bay may be suggested
by Dawn’s serving it—although to no avail—to Tithonus (231–2 with n.;
and note the connection of the now immortal Ganymede with nektar in
204–6), so that there is perhaps a hint of some causal relationship between
the two, formally paratactic halves of the line: the nymphs live a long time
because they eat ambrosia. But the basic point is that to share the gods’
food is to be intimately associated with them in a way that human beings
normally are not. Cf. 261 with n. For ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ İੇįĮȡ, cf. hAp. 127 (line
final).
261 Not only do the nymphs share the gods’ food (260), but they visit
them, sc. when the Olympians gather in Zeus’ house to feast, as the Hesi-
odic Muses also do (Hes. Th. 36–43, 68–71), and they dance in their pres-
ence (ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ); cf. h. 6.11–13 with n. (the Seasons dance in Zeus’
house); 27.15–18 (Artemis dances with the Muses and the Graces in Apol-
lo’s house at Delphi) with 27.13–30 n. țĮȜȩȞ represents an evaluation not
just of the performance but (via hypallage) of the appearance of the
nymphs themselves (‘the beautiful dance of the nymphs’ being equivalent
to ‘the dance of the beautiful nymphs’); cf. 206 with n., 262 İ੡ıțȠʌȠȢ
ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ with n., 264–8 n.; h. 27.15 țĮȜઁȞ ȤȠȡȩȞ*. For the non-
Homeric prosody of the adjective, see 28–9 n. on 29 țĮȜઁȞ ȖȑȡĮȢ.
ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ implicitly distinguishes the Olympian gods (who are
genuinely immortal) from the nymphs (who live a long time but not forev-
er; cf. 260 with n.).
ਥȡȡȫıĮȞĲȠ (gnomic aorist with Ĳİ) is borrowed from Il. 24.616*
ȞȣȝĳȐȦȞ, Į੆ Ĳૅ ਕȝĳૅ ਝțİȜȒıȚȠȞ ਥȡȡȫıĮȞĲȠ (‘of the nymphs, who nimbly
dance about the Acelesius’), where it similarly refers to the behavior of the
local nymphs; cf. h. 19.3 ȤȠȡȠȖȘșȑıȚ ȞȪȝĳĮȚȢ (‘nymphs who rejoice in
264 Commentary
dances’), 19–21. For the verb (a ‘timeless’ hymnic aorist, like ਩ĳȣıĮȞ in
265), cf. Hes. Th. 8 (of the Heliconian Muses); hHerm. 505*.
262–263 If Hermes and the silens routinely sleep with nymphs, they ought
to have offspring, who might perhaps be additional nymphs, in which case
there is a close logical connection between these verses and 264–5 (but see
264–8 introductory n.). More likely their children are other strange ‘moun-
tain’ or ‘wilderness’ creatures such as centaurs (cf. [Apollod.] Bib. ii.5.4,
where the centaur Pholos is identified as the child of Silenus and a nymph),
Pans (cf. h. 19.2–3, 19–26, where Pan himself roams the woods and dances
with mountain nymphs; and see Gantz (1993) 110–11), and additional
silens or satyrs (since X. Smp. 5.7 identifies the naiad nymphs as the moth-
ers of the silens; Silenus eventually becomes the father of the satyrs, as in
Euripides’ Cyclops; and Paus. i.23.5 reports that the oldest satyrs are
called silens); cf. S. fr. 314.41–2 [ … ]İȓȦȞ ȞȣȝĳȠȖİȞȞȒ[Ĳ … ] / [ … ]Ȟҕ
ĲȓȢ ਥıĲȚ, where Pearson (his lines 35–6), following Wilamowitz, prints [ਲ਼
Ĳ૵Ȟ ੑȡ]İȓȦȞ ȞȣȝĳȠȖİȞȞȒ[ĲȠȣ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ] / [șȘȡ૵]Ȟ ĲȓȢ ਥıĲȚ (‘or this is one of
the mountain beasts from the race sprung from nymphs’), taking this as a
reference to the satyrs who make up the chorus. Ȉ Pi. O. 13.34–5 reports
that Bounos, king of Corinth, was the son of Hermes and a nymph.
ıȚȜȘȞȠȓ: This is the first reference to silens (half-horse, half-human
creatures, more often associated with Dionysus than with Hermes) in ex-
tant literary sources; precisely how (and whether) they are to be distin-
guished from satyrs (first mentioned at Hes. fr. 123, where they and the
Ƞ੡ȡİȚĮȚ ȞȪȝĳĮȚ șİĮȓ (‘mountain nymph goddesses’) are siblings) is unclear,
although see above. For the common literary and artistic theme of romantic
and sexual relations between nymphs and silens, see Pi. fr. 156.2–3 ȞĮ૘įȠȢ
ਕțȠȓĲĮȢ / ȈȚȜȘȞȩȢ (‘Silenus, bed-fellow of a naiad’); Hedreen (1992) 71–3;
(1994) 47–69, esp. 47–54; Gantz (1993) 135–9, esp. 137 ‘In all, we must
admit severe limits to our information for the Archaic period’; LIMC
VIII.1.1108–10. The name is spelled ȈǿȁǼȃȅǿ on the François vase (570–
565 BCE) and elsewhere in early vase-inscriptions (references at
Kretschmer (1894 [1980]) 132–3; a personal name at IG I3 53.3 (433/2
BCE)), and ought presumably to be written that way here, as in ȍ (Mfb). Ȍ
(followed by Ĭ) seems to have offered İ as a superlinear supplement: the f-
and b-scribes opted for ıȚȜȘȞȠȓ, the a-scribe for ıİȜȘȞȠȓ, and the p-scribe
took both letters into the text (ıİȚȜȘȞȠȓ). Cf. Introduction 6.
İ੡ıțȠʌȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ: A nicely chosen epithet, if the point is that
Hermes got a ‘good look’ at the nymphs, allowing him to assess their indi-
vidual charms (cf. 257 ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ with n., 264–7 with nn.), when they
danced for the gods in heaven (cf. 261 with n.). İ੡ıțȠʌȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ is a
unique variant of the Homeric and hymnic ਥȪıțȠʌȠȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ / (attest-
ed in various cases at Il. 24.24, 109; Od. 1.38; 7.137; hAp. 200; hHerm.
73), in which the first word is always scanned ȣ - - -.
ȝȣȤ૵Ț ıʌİȓȦȞ ਥȡȠȑȞĲȦȞ: Nymphs routinely inhabit caves (e.g. Od.
5.57–8; 13.103–4 (quoted below), 349–50; hHerm. 6), but apparently have
sex only in the inmost corners of their residences (rendering the activity
invisible to mortal eyes). The adjective is colored by the erotic nature of
the activity carried on in the place it describes (ȝȓıȖȠȞĲૅ ਥȞ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȚ), as at
hDem. 425 (Persephone describes what she and her companions were do-
ing just before Hades carried her off to be his bride) ʌĮȓȗȠȝİȞ ਱įૅ ਙȞșİĮ
įȡȑʌȠȝİȞ Ȥİȓȡİııૅ ਥȡȩİȞĲĮ (‘we were enjoying ourselves and plucking
ਥȡȩİȞĲĮ flowers with our hands’).
264–268 It eventually emerges that nymphs die (269–72 with nn.), mean-
ing that they must constantly be born as well. Homer and Hesiod refer
routinely to them as ‘daughters of Zeus’ (e.g. Il. 6.420; Od. 6.105; 9.154;
Hes. fr. 304.5; cf. Alc. fr. 343; contrast Hes. Th. 187, where Meliad
nymphs are born from the blood of the castrated Sky), hence perhaps their
readiness to dance for the Olympian gods in his house, as Hesiod’s Muses
(also Zeus’ daughters) do at Th. 36–43. Here the matter of the nymphs’
parentage is ignored, and they enter the world as arbitrarily as they exit it
(269 with n.). In any case, what at first appears to be a further, incidental
detail of Aphrodite’s description of them in fact sets up the demonstration
in what follows that—as asserted in 259—although nymphs are not mortal
in the way that human beings are (cf. 260–1), neither are they immortal
like the Olympians; cf. 267–8 n.
For the connection between individual trees and individual nymphs,
whose lives are somehow interlocked with theirs, cf. Charon of Lampsacus
(5th c. BCE) FGrH 262 F 12, citing (F 12a ap. Ȉ A.R. 2.476) Pi. fr. 165
ੁıȠįȑȞįȡȠȣ / ĲȑțȝĮȡ Įੁ૵ȞȠȢ șİȩĳȡĮıĲȠȞ ȜĮȤȠ૙ıĮ (‘alloted a divinely-
declared limit of a lifespan equal to a tree’s’) and (F 12b ap. Tzetzes in
Lyc. 480) Eumel. fr. 15 (II), p. 113 Bernabé; Call. h. 4.83–5 ਷ ૧ૅ ਥĲİઁȞ
ਥȖȑȞȠȞĲȠ ĲȩĲİ įȡȪİȢ ਲȞȓțĮ ȞȪȝĳĮȚ; / ȞȪȝĳĮȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ȤĮȓȡȠȣıȚȞ, ੖Ĳİ įȡȪĮȢ
੕ȝȕȡȠȢ ਕȑȟİȚ, / ȞȪȝĳĮȚ įૅ Į੣ țȜĮȓȠȣıȚȞ, ੖Ĳİ įȡȣı੿ ȝȘțȑĲȚ ĳȪȜȜĮ (‘Did
oaks actually come into being at the same time as nymphs? The nymphs
are happy when the rain makes the oaks grow, whereas the nymphs wail
when leaves are no longer on the oaks’); 6.36–9 (where the nymphs play
about the trees in Demeter’s sacred grove, and one of the trees shrieks in
pain when struck with an axe); and note the generic names Dryads (‘Oak-
tree nymphs’), Hamadryads (‘Simultaneous-with-oak-tree nymphs’; hinted
at here in ਚȝ(Į) … įȡȪİȢ), and Meliads (‘Ash-tree nymphs’ (Hes. Th.
187)).
The description of the trees whose existence is tied to that of the
nymphs is easily understood as incorporating crucial characteristics of the
266 Commentary
nymphs themselves: they are beautiful (țĮȜĮȓ; cf. 261 n.), tall
(ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ with 264–5 n., ਱ȜȓȕĮĲȠȚ; cf. 81–3 n.), and ‘flourishing’
(ĲȘȜİșȐȠȣıĮȚ; cf. 257 ȕĮșȪțȠȜʌȠȚ with n.), and the presence of a group of
them marks a spot as belonging to one or more individual gods (267–8
with n.; cf. 261 with n.). To see a stand of such trees in particular is thus to
catch a glimpse of nymphs in the only guise in which they normally reveal
themselves to mortal eyes (although cf. 284–5 with n.), and the repeated
reference to the trees’ height and size captures the awestruck perspective of
a human being who enters a grove of them and stares up toward their tops.
The focalization is in any case once again firmly human (esp. ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿
ȕȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ, with its firmly agricultural orientation) and thus set in the
valleys, over which the mountains loom (ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ; cf. 160*
with n.): the places where the nymphs’ trees grow are specifically not the
normal home of the mortal creatures who visit them. Cf. 257–8 n., 260 n.,
268 with n. The trees are plural in 264–5 (as again in 270–2) only because
this is also true of the nymphs (who are presumably born and die at sepa-
rate, individual times, rather than en masse), whereas what are described in
266–8 are actual sacred groves, i.e. large stands of such trees in a single
place.
264–265 ਥȜȐĲĮȚ and įȡȪİȢ are specifically ‘firs’ and ‘oaks’ (thus LfgrE
s.vv.), although the underlying opposition is between conifers and decidu-
ous trees generally; cf. Il. 11.494; 23.328; [Hes.] Sc. 376, 422, in all of
which įȡȪİȢ are contrasted with ʌİ૨țĮȚ (‘pines’); Mastronarde on E. Ph.
1515–16. For firs as notably tall trees, Il. 5.560; 14.287; Od. 5.239; for
their presence in the mountains, Il. 14.287; Hes. Op. 509–10. For oaks as
tall, Il. 12.132 įȡȪİȢ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ (probably the model for the end
of 264); for their presence in the mountains, also Il. 13.389–90; Hes. Op.
232, 509–10; [Hes.] Sc. 374–6.
The adjective ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ (cf. Il. 12.132 įȡȪİȢ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ* /)
neatly bridges the gap between the trees (which do not actually have heads)
and the nymphs whose form they represent in the mortal world (who do);
cf. 268 țİȓȡȠȣıȚ with n. As applied to the trees, the word is in one sense
proleptic: they are not tall the moment they emerge from the ground, but
must grow to full size along with their nymphs, just as they later decay and
die in conjunction with them (269–72). But in practice the presence of
nymphs can be detected only in retrospect, in towering, full-grown trees,
and especially in collections of them; not every sapling is a juvenile
nymph. In a separate and more significant sense that has shaped the lan-
guage in this verse, therefore, the goddesses’ groves are ‘lofty’ from the
very first, and they are, unsurprisingly, normally found in places inaccessi-
ble to ordinary human contact (276) and in particular to logging (278 with
n.).
਩ĳȣıĮȞ is a ‘timeless’ hymnic aorist, like ਥȡȡȫıĮȞĲȠ in 261; cf.

Faulkner (2006) 69.
ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿ ȕȦĲȚĮȞİȓȡȘȚ: The standard early epic expression in this
sedes is ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞ੿ ʌȠȣȜȣȕȠĲİȓȡȘȚ (‘upon the earth that nourishes many’;
e.g. Il. 3.89, 195; 6.213; 8.73; 12.158; 21.146; Od. 12.191; Hes. Op. 157,
252; cf. Od. 19.408 ਕȞ੹ ȤșȩȞĮ ȕȦĲȚȐȞİȚȡĮȞ*). For the reference to human
beings, cf. 264–8 n.
266–268 These verses might easily have been omitted, with 269 following
directly after 265. For the intrusive reference to contemporary cult, cf. 1–2,
6, 26, 28, 31–2, 59, 175 with nn.
țĮȜĮ੿ ĲȘȜİșȐȠȣıĮȚ stands in implicit contrast to the description of the
slow physical decay of the trees in 270–1. For the collocation of adjectives,
cf. Il. 17.55 / țĮȜઁȞ ĲȘȜİșȐȠȞ (of water). For ĲȘȜİșȐȦȞ applied to
trees, cf. Od. 7.114 ਩ȞșĮ į੻ įȑȞįȡİĮ ȝĮțȡ੹ ʌİĳȪțĮıȚ ĲȘȜİșȐȠȞĲĮ (‘tall,
flourishing trees grow there’); 13.196 įȑȞįȡİĮ ĲȘȜİșȐȠȞĲĮ (‘flourishing
trees’); LfgrE s.v. B 2.
ਦıĲ઼ı(Ț): Contrast the lively movements in the divine sphere of the
nymphs the trees represent in the mortal world (261–3, esp. 261).
਱ȜȓȕĮĲȠȚ is always applied in Homer to rocks (Il. 15.273; 16.35; Od.
9.243; 13.196; Hes. Th. 675; hHerm. 404; LfgrE s.v. B 1; of a cave at Hes.
Th. 483), but is also used of a tree at [Hes.] Sc. 421–2 ʌİȪțȘ / ਱ȜȓȕĮĲȠȢ (‘a
high pine’).
The point of ĲİȝȑȞİĮ įȑ ਦ țȚțȜȒıțȠȣıȚȞ / ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ may be that hu-
man beings (who emerge explicitly here for the first time in Aphrodite’s
description of the nymphs, although see 257–8 n., 260 n., 264–8 n. for the
focalization throughout) correctly refer to these groves as sanctuaries of the
Olympian gods, who never die. But 269–72 are just as easily understood as
a correction of an understandable human error—people refer to the nymphs
to whom the groves belong as ‘immortals’ because they live so long (260
with n.), but their lives do eventually come to an end—particularly since
Od. 4.355 ĭȐȡȠȞ įȑ ਦ țȚțȜȒıțȠȣıȚȞ / (‘people refer to it as Pharos’), on
which the end of 267 is modeled, is part of Menelaus’ tale of how he failed
to worship the gods correctly (cf. Od. 4.352–3). For ĲİȝȑȞİĮ (Faulkner
(2008)) in synizesis in place of ȍ’s contracted ĲİȝȑȞȘ, cf. Il. 11.282
ıĲȒșİĮ (in synizesis); Od. 11.185 (where the MSS also offer ĲİȝȑȞȘ);
Chantraine (1958) i.56. țȚțȜȒıțȠȣıȚȞ also appears * at Il. 2.813; Od.
9.366; Hes. Op. 818.
ਦ is not treated as plural elsewhere in early epic.
Ĳ੹Ȣ įૅ Ƞ੡ ĲȚ ȕȡȠĲȠ੿ țİȓȡȠȣıȚ ıȚįȒȡȦȚ: The implication is that the
nymphs’ trees are spared from logging because they are understood to be
ĲİȝȑȞİĮ … ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ. But it is simultaneously the case that they have sur-
vived to become a sacred grove because they are located high enough up in
268 Commentary
the mountains that woodcutters—referred to generically as ȕȡȠĲȠȓ so as to

create a strong contrast with ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ at the head of the line—have ig-
nored them. Cf. 264–5 n., 269–72 n. For timber-cutting, an activity con-
sistently located in the mountains except at Il. 4.482–7 (where the tree is a
poplar, and it is accordingly cut and allowed to season along a riverbank)
and Od. 5.238–9 (where alders and poplars are in question, along with a
single fir), cf. Il. 11.86–8; 13.178–80, 389–91 = 16.482–4; 23.114–23; Od.
10.103–4. For ıȓįȘȡȠȢ used to refer specifically to an axe used to fell trees,
cf. Il. 4.485; Hes. Op. 420; LfgrE s.v. B 2a.
țİȓȡȠȣıȚ: The verb is also used of cutting timber at Il. 24.450, but
more often refers to cutting hair (LfgrE s.v. B I 1); cf. 264 ਫ਼ȥȚțȐȡȘȞȠȚ n.
269–272 The terseness of expression in 272 in particular obscures the tem-
poral structure of the argument: When the time for the trees to die is at
hand (269; for the significance of the plurals, cf. 264–8 n.), first (ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ)
they dry up, their bark peels off everywhere, and their branches drop; then
(sc. when the trees actually die, 270–1 being merely a catalogue of symp-
toms of impending doom) the nymphs’ souls pass out of the world along
with their trees (272). What was once a sacred grove inhabited by (and in
another sense identical with) a group of nymphs, is now nothing more than
a collection of dead trees—but perfectly dry, still-standing dead trees, ideal
for human uses of all sorts; cf. Il. 23.327–8 (dry wood as ideal construction
material, because of its resistance to rot); Od. 5.240 (Odysseus fells dry,
long-dead, standing trees, including a fir ‘that stretched to heaven’, for
material to make his raft ride as high out of the water as possible—and in
order himself to escape captivity imposed by a nymph); 18.309 (the same
formula used to describe perfectly dry firewood); Hes. Op. 420–2 (trees
that have dropped their branches and ceased to produce leaves are recom-
mended for felling for carpentry-work, on the ground that they are the least
likely to be worm-eaten). It is accordingly tempting to see the taboo on
felling trees in sacred groves referred to in 268 as tacitly allowing the ac-
tivity now, when harm to the nymphs can no longer be done.
The expression ȝȠ૙ȡĮ șĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ (literally ‘a fate consisting of death’) is
found several times in the Odyssey (2.100 = 3.238 = 19.145 = 24.135;
17.326; cf. Hes. fr. 35.4 [șĮȞȐĲȠ]ȚҕȠ … ȝȠ૙ȡĮ), but never with ʌĮȡȓıĲȘȝȚ
(for which, cf. 245 ʌĮȡȓıĲĮĲĮȚ; LfgrE s. ੆ıĲȘȝȚ B I B 9bȖ), and ȝȠ૙ȡĮ
ʌĮȡİıĲȒțȘȚ șĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ is most likely modeled on Il. 16.853 (the dying Pa-
troclus to the doomed Hector) = 24.132 (Thetis to the doomed Achilleus)
ਙȖȤȚ ʌĮȡȑıĲȘțİȞ șȐȞĮĲȠȢ țĮ੿ ȝȠ૙ȡĮ țȡĮĲĮȚȒ (‘death and an irresistible fate
stand close at hand’). The phrase is any case strikingly impersonal: no one
bears any more responsibility for the nymphs’ deaths than for their birth
(264–5 with n.).
ਕȗȐȞİĲĮȚ: The verb (cognate with ਙȗȦ (A); cf. esp. Il. 4.487 (of a
felled tree) ਲ ȝȑȞ Ĳૅ ਕȗȠȝȑȞȘ țİ૙ĲĮȚ ʌȠĲĮȝȠ૙Ƞ ʌĮȡૅ ੕ȤșĮȢ (‘it lies there,
dried, along the riverbanks’) is attested elsewhere only at Nic. Th. 205
ਕȗȒȞȘȚ, where it may represent a learned allusion to this verse, and at Hsch.
Į 1439 ਕȗȐȞșȘā ਥȟȘȡȐȞșȘ (perhaps a misguided attempt to explain a text
that should have read Į੝ȐȞșȘ, as at Th. 339, 368, where ਕȗ- is a variant
reading for the more common Į੝-). But cf. Od. 11.587 țĮĲĮȗȒȞĮıțİ (of
causing water to disappear from in front of someone).
ਥʌ੿ ȤșȠȞȓ echoes 265*, explicitly marking the return to the generalized
mythical narrative that began in 264–5, after the cultic excursus in 266–8.
įȑȞįȡİĮ țĮȜȐ: The trees are no longer ‘beautiful’ when the decay de-
scribed in 270–1 takes place, and the reference is instead back to the situa-
tion in 266–8 (esp. 266 țĮȜĮȓ), before any of this has happened, while the
grove is still flourishing. The standard Homeric epithet of įȑȞįȡİĮ is
ȝĮțȡȐ (‘tall’; Il. 9.541 įȑȞįȡİĮ ȝĮțȡȐ /; 11.88; Od. 5.238; 7.114; 18.359),
and the use of an alternative adjective marks this as a deliberate evocation
of—and contrast with—the description of the trees in the immediately
preceding verses.
271 is one of only two verses in the hAphr. with a fourth-foot caesura
(also 4); see Introduction 5.
ਕȝĳȚʌİȡȚĳșȚȞȪșİȚ: The double prefix indicates that the bark disap-
pears not just ‘on the exterior’ of the trees but all about their circumference
as well, i.e. as opposed to the appearance of a few isolated bald patches.
The compound (a hapax) is a high-style epic formation, like
ਕȝĳȚʌİȡȚıĲȡȦĳȐȦ at Il. 8.348 ਕȝĳȚʌİȡȚıĲȡȫĳĮ*, and ਕȝĳȚʌİȡȚıĲȑĳȦ at
Od. 8.175; cf. the numerous similar formations catalogued in LSJ in later
authors such as Callimachus, Oppian, Quintus Smyrnaeus, and Nonnus,
who self-consciously echo early poetic mannerisms.
Ĳ૵Ȟ … ȥȣȤȒ: literally ‘their soul’, i.e. the soul of the individual
nymph whose tree has just died.
șૅ: The MSS have Ȥૅ (i.e. țİ), which will not do with the indicative;
see Smith (1979) 37–9.
ȥȣȤ੽ ȜİȓʌİȚ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ: see 105, 256 n. The phrase is modeled on
passages such as Il. 18.11 ȜİȓȥİȚȞ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ /; Od. 11.93 ȜȚʌઅȞ ĳȐȠȢ
਱İȜȓȠȚȠ /; Hes. Op. 155 ਩ȜȚʌȠȞ ĳȐȠȢ ਱İȜȓȠȚȠ /, on the one hand, and Od.
14.134 ȥȣȤ੽ į੻ ȜȑȜȠȚʌİȞ, 426 ĲઁȞ įૅ ਩ȜȚʌİ ȥȣȤȒ; 18.91 ੮Ȣ ȝȚȞ ȥȣȤ੽ ȜȓʌȠȚ,
on the other.
273 resumes 257 (note șȡȑȥȠȣıȚȞ*) after the long digression in 258–72.
But there the adjectives in the second half of the line serve to introduce the
discussion of the nymphs and their ways that follows, whereas here Aph-
rodite’s words focus on Aeneas and the paradoxical nature of the arrange-
ment—this is her son (ਥȝઁȞ … ȣੂȩȞ), but the nymphs will be in charge of
270 Commentary
him (ʌĮȡ੹ ıĳȓıȚȞ … ਩ȤȠȣıĮȚ)—and thus the possibility (or likelihood) that
she will eventually make alternative plans for him (274–5, 280).
274–275 In the text as the MSS present it, Aphrodite says both that the
nymphs who raise Aeneas will bring him to Anchises (274–5) and that she
will do so herself (276–7 ıȠ੿ įૅ ਥȖȫ, ੕ĳȡĮ † ĲĮ૨ĲĮ ȝİĲ੹ ĳȡİı੿ ʌȐȞĲĮ
įȚȑȜșȦ, / ਥȢ ʌȑȝʌĲȠȞ ਩ĲȠȢ Į੣ĲȚȢ ਥȜİȪıȠȝĮȚ ȣੂઁȞ ਙȖȠȣıĮ (‘But I will
come again to you—let me go through all these matters in my mind—again
in the fifth year, bringing the boy’); corrupt but easily emended). One pair
of lines must be expelled (despite van Eck (1978) ad loc., who nonetheless
admits his inability to explain what he characterizes as the ‘correction’ of
274–5 in 276–7); that 276, as we have it, is lacunose, does not count
against it, although the obscurity (or vacuity) of the thought arguably does.
If 274–5 are retained (as in the text printed here, and in Faulkner (2008)
and Richardson (2010)), Aphrodite’s involvement with Anchises is over at
the end of this speech; she abandons Aeneas to the nymphs completely the
moment he is born (cf. 256–7); and the boy apparently visits Troy for the
first time as a young teenager (see below). If 276–7 are retained instead (as
in Càssola (1975), and as urged by Smith (1979) 39–41 and by West
(2003) in his n.), Aphrodite promises that she will visit Anchises again in
four years and personally bring their son to him, and Aeneas spends all but
his very earliest childhood in the city. That the repetition of the first half of
274 in 278 (cf. 256) strikes the modern ear as clumsy, is not to the point,
since an ancient audience may well have disagreed with an aesthetic judg-
ment of this sort. More important, the repetition supplies a mechanical
explanation for the error that led to the generation of an alterative version
of the lost verses: the eye of a scribe copying “MS 1” (which preserved the
text as printed here) leapt from ĲઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥʌ੽Ȟ į੽ ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ in 274 to the same
phrase at the beginning of 278, causing him to omit 274–5 from his copy
of the poem (“MS 2”); someone studying “MS 2” created 276–7 (or bor-
rowed the verses from elsewhere) and inserted them in the text to fill the
logical gap between Aphrodite’s announcement in 273 that the nymphs
would raise Aeneas and her prediction in 278–9 of Anchises’ reaction to
his first sight of the boy, producing “MS 3” (perhaps nothing more than
“MS 2” with marginal additions); a subsequent reader compared two cop-
ies of the text, one containing 274–5 but not 276–7 (i.e. the correct original
version, as in “MS 1”), the other containing 276–7 but not 274–5 (i.e. the
artificially supplemented version in “MS 3” and passed on from that MS to
its descendants, if it had any); and in a subsequent copy (“MS 4”) depend-
ant on this collation, all four verses were given. Cf. 97–9 (another example
of ancient supplementation of the text designed to correct the omission of a
verse via a simple mechanical error), 136 and 136a (a doublet of a more
complicated sort).
274 ਪȜȘȚ: A bold use of the verb; LfgrE s.v. B I A 2aȕ (col. 352) offers as
parallels only instances in which the subject is sleep (੢ʌȞȠȢ) or desire
(ʌȩșȠȢ), both of which can more easily be imagined ‘seizing’ control of a
person. But Aphrodite treats Aeneas throughout as a passive creature, who
is to be led off in various directions, put on display, and gazed at, but who
never makes a gesture or says a word of his own.
ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ: i.e. early adolescence, the age at which Tithonus,
for example, was snatched away by Dawn to be her lover (225*–7); cf. Od.
15.366 (the age at which a girl is married, and a boy is sent off to make his
own way in the world). Although the adjective modifies ਸ਼ȕȘ, it actually
represents an evaluation of the handsome young men who reach that age,
and is the product of an appreciative erotic public gaze that Anchises gen-
erally participates in and can understand, even if in the specific case of
Aeneas he will take part in it in only a peripheral fashion (275–82 with
nn.).
275, 278–279 įİ૨ȡȠ: i.e. to the cowyard on the slopes of Mount Ida, from
where Anchises will take the boy to Troy (280). There is no hint in Aphro-
dite’s vision of the future that Anchises will visit the city in the meantime,
in part because of the extraordinary acceleration of time within the narra-
tive—years have passed in 273–4, and have carried Anchises, unchanged
because there has been no space within the text for him to age or engage in
other activities, along with them—but also because only when Anchises
gets Aeneas will he be transformed into a central figure in Trojan society;
cf. 103–6 with nn., 278–82 with nn.
What the nymphs will show (įİȓȟȠȣıȚ) to Anchises, and what he will
accordingly see (੅įȘȚȢ), will be his—or his and Aphrodite’s—child (ʌĮ૙įĮ,
șȐȜȠȢ; for the difference between the terms, see below). But the sight will
cause him joy (ȖȘșȒıİȚȢ ੒ȡȩȦȞ) because he will immediately (ʌȡ૵ĲȠȞ)
recognize that what others will see, sc. when he takes the boy to Troy
(280), will be instead an extraordinarily handsome and thus extraordinarily
desirable young man (ȝȐȜĮ Ȗ੹ȡ șİȠİȓțİȜȠȢ ਩ıĲĮȚ; cf. 274 ʌȠȜȣȒȡĮĲȠȢ ਸ਼ȕȘ
with n.).
ʌĮ૙įĮ (‘child’; what Aeneas will be to the nymphs) is a more straight-
forward and emotionally much less charged word than șȐȜȠȢ (‘shoot’, i.e.
‘offspring, scion’; what Aeneas will be to Anchises); cf. Il. 22.87* (Hector,
about to die, as addressed by Hecabe) with Richardson ad loc.; Od. 6.157
(Nausicaa as seen by her adoring parents); hDem. 66 (the kidnapped Per-
sephone as described by the broken-hearted Demeter), 187 (Demophon in
his mother’s arms); LfgrE s.v. ‘liebevoll-bewundernd … aus Elternsicht’.
ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚ is common with forms of ੒ȡȐȦ and similar verbs (e.g. Il.
1.587; 3.28; Od. 3.94; 4.226; Hes. Th. 451; hDem. 333; hAp. 415; cf. 83,
179).
272 Commentary
ȖȘșȒıİȚȢ ੒ȡȩȦȞ: a common combination of verbs (e.g. Il. 1.330;

4.255, 283; 311; Od. 5.486; 12.88; 13.226; Hes. fr. 302.21 ȖȘșȒıȦ įૅ
੒ȡȩȦȞ*).
șİȠİȓțİȜȠȢ ਩ıĲĮȚ: cf. 55 n., 91–106 n. But here part of the point must
be that the boy’s mother will, in fact, be a goddess.
280 Although ਙȟİȚȢ is properly a future and thus a prediction of what will
happen (like the main verbs throughout 273–5, 278–9), it functions as an
imperative (like the infinitive in 283); Į੝ĲȓțĮ adds a peremptory tone.
Ȍ’s ȞȚȞ (Ȟ૨Ȟ M) is not an early epic form, hence Hermann’s ȝȚȞ.
ʌȠĲ੿ ૓ǿȜȚȠȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİııĮȞ has a profoundly Iliadic tone (see the second
apparatus), and thus evokes the role Aeneas will eventually play in the
Trojan War, and indeed the tragedy of Troy as a whole; cf. 281–2 n. on
281 ~ Od. 9.502–3, 283 n., 291 ʌȡઁȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİȞĲĮ / with n.
281–282 This is formally the protasis of a condition, and thus only a possi-
bility. But Aphrodite takes it for granted that Aeneas will excite public
attention and comment (cf. 275, 278–9 n.), giving his father an opportunity
and incentive to boast, even unwisely (286–7).
281 is adapted from Od. 9.502–3 ȀȪțȜȦȥ, Į੅ țȑȞ ĲȓȢ ıİ țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ
ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ / ੑĳșĮȜȝȠ૨ İ੅ȡȘĲĮȚ ਕİȚțİȜȓȘȞ ਕȜĮȦĲȩȞ (‘Cyclops, if any mortal
person asks about the unsightly blinding of your eye’), where Odysseus
taunts the blinded Polyphemus, bringing ruin on himself and his crew. The
verse thus represents a preliminary, intertextual warning of the dangers of
inappropriate boasting and the ability of reckless words—especially reck-
less words that surrender names that ought to be kept secret (290; cf. Od.
9.504–5, 526–36)—to incite divine wrath; cf. 286–8 with nn. As through-
out the poem, the phrase țĮĲĮșȞȘĲ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ recalls the stark differ-
ence between mortals and immortals, and so the risk the former assume
when they ignore the power and commands of the latter (cf. 283–90).
ਸ਼ ĲȚȢ țĲȜ: The way the question is framed assumes that the boy’s
mother (like Aphrodite as she describes herself at 255, where see n.) delib-
erately chose to get pregnant, either to please Anchises (ıȠȚ) or because
she herself wanted a child, depending on whose focalization ĳȓȜȠȞ is taken
to represent.
283 For the sense of ȝȣșİ૙ıșĮȚ, see 284–5 n.
ȝİȝȞȘȝȑȞȠȢ ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ is borrowed from Hes. Op. 623 (quoted in
the first apparatus), which adds a sententious note and is particularly appro-
priate because the advice there has to do with acting wisely and appropriate-
ly at a time when the winds are blowing hard (cf. 280 ૓ǿȜȚȠȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİııĮȞ,
291 ʌȡઁȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİȞĲĮ) and sailing is a bad idea. Cf. 281 with n., 288
with n. For the verb, cf. Pelliccia (1993) 87–92 (p. 91 on this passage):
‘ȝİȝȞોıșĮȚ designates the mental state of awareness—awareness of moral
obligations, to put it most summarily—thanks to which a person behaves

correctly; failure to ȝİȝȞોıșĮȚ … leads to incorrect behavior, a conse-
quence of which, especially when it directly offends the gods, … is ȝોȞȚȢ’
(p. 87).
284–285 284 is modeled on Il. 20.206 ĳĮı੿ ı੻ ȝ੻Ȟ ȆȘȜોȠȢ ਕȝȪȝȠȞȠȢ
਩țȖȠȞȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ (‘They say that you are the offspring of faultless Peleus’),
where Aeneas describes Achilleus’ ancestry before boasting (İ੡ȤȠȝĮȚ; cf.
286) of his own descent from Anchises and Aphrodite in 20.208–9; cf.
286–8 n. The paradosis ĳĮıȓ(Ȟ) (the nu-moveable was lost before ĲȠȓ) is
thus almost certainly correct, allowing ȝȣșİ૙ıșĮȚ (infinitive for imperative)
in 283 to be taken to mean ‘say!’, introducing the quotation. Unrealistic as
this may be on one level (since a father ought to be able to identify his
son’s mother, even if no one else can), therefore, the answer Aphrodite
puts in Anchises’ mouth is deeply evasive: he is to report the rumors (sup-
posedly) circulating about his son’s origins, but nothing else. Cf. Od.
1.215–16, where Telemachus reports that his mother claims that he is
Odysseus’ son, but notes that he of course has no way of being sure that
this is true. Matthiae’s ĳȐıșĮȚ (a second infinitive for imperative; cf. Od.
9.504* ~ 281, where see n.), advocated for by Smith (1979) 41–3 and
printed by West (2003) and Faulkner (2008), requires either that ȝȣșİ૙ıșĮȚ
have the much less common absolute sense ‘say (something appropriate)!’
(LfgrE s.v. B I 3c), or that the line be repunctuated Ĳ૵Ț į੻ ıȪ, ȝȣșİ૙ıșĮȚ
ȝİȝȞȘȝȑȞȠȢ ੮Ȣ ıİ țİȜİȪȦ, with a final comma rather than a half-stop, and
with Ĳ૵Ț į੻ ıȪ to be taken with ĳȐıșĮȚ rather than with ȝȣșİ૙ıșĮȚ (unlike
in the Hesiodic exemplar).
For mortal men having sex with nymphs who bear them children, cf. Il.
6.21–2 (where the father’s name is ǺȠȣțȠȜȓȦȞ (cognate with ȕȠȣțȩȜȠȢ,
‘cowherd’)—himself identified as a child of a nymph and the Trojan king
Ilus at [Apollod.] Bib. iii.12.3); 14.444–5 (where the man meets the nymph
while herding cows, ȕȠȣțȠȜȑȠȞĲȚ, like Anchises in the Hymn); 20.383–5.
ȞȪȝĳȘȢ țĮȜȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ: The precise meaning of the adjective (‘with a
flower-like face’, i.e. ‘blushing, rosy-cheeked’?; ‘with eyes the shape/color
of flower-buds’?) is unclear; see Richardson on hDem. 8 țĮȜȣțȫʌȚįȚ
țȠȪȡȘȚ / (along with hDem. 420 ૅȍțȣȡȩȘ țĮȜȣț૵ʌȚȢ /, the only other attes-
tations of the word in early epic). In any case, it commends the nymph’s
beauty, while continuing the process of identifying her with the flora of the
mountainside where she belongs (cf. 264–72). But the actual visual source
of the rumor is not the nymph—whom no one except Anchises himself has
presumably seen—but Aeneas, whose boyish glow (cf. 202–6 with nn.) is
traced to the otherwise unknown mother who bore him.
285 up through the fourth-foot princeps is identical to 258 (and com-
pare the intrusive [98]). To describe the mountain as țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ
274 Commentary
(contrast 258 ȝȑȖĮ Ĳİ ȗȐșİȩȞ Ĳİ* with n.) is in part simply to mark it as a
likely home for nymphs; cf. 264–72 with nn.; Od. 13.350–1 (a sacred cave
of the local nymphs on Ithaca, with Mount Neritus towering over it
țĮĲĮİȚȝȑȞȠȞ ੢ȜȘȚ). But the phrase also helps explain how Aeneas could
have been brought up undetected on the slopes of Ida, as well as why his
mother’s identity is a cipher, for what goes on beneath a dense spread of
foliage is impossible to see or know.
286–288 Although the imaginary action in the protasis is divided between
two formally parallel verbs, the second in fact provides the motivation for
the first: Anchises may be tempted to reveal (ਥȟİȓʌȘȚȢ) that he slept with
Aphrodite out of boastfulness (ਥʌİȪȟİĮȚ). ਥȟİ૙ʌȠȞ regularly refers to dis-
closing something previously—and in two of the three other early epic uses
of the word, better—left unsaid (Il. 9.61; 24.654; Od. 15.443).
ਙĳȡȠȞȚ șȣȝ૵Ț is borrowed from Od. 21.105, where Telemachus at-
tempts to excuse his own ill-timed laughter in response to Antinoos’ mis-
taken insistence (Od. 21.93–4) that ‘there is no man among all of us here
such as Odysseus was’ despite the disguised hero’s presence in the room.
The adjective is focalized by Aphrodite, to whom this is patently reckless
and insane behavior, whereas Anchises, as she imagines him, is acting out of
high-spirited, boastful self-confidence, with no sense of making a mistake.
ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȦȚ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȚ: The epithets define Aphrodite not as An-
chises sees and has experienced her, but as she is worshipped, e.g. at Troy,
where he just been imagined claiming to have slept with a well-known
object of public cult. Cf. 6 ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ* with n., 175
ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ* with n.
ǽİȪȢ ıİ ȤȠȜȦıȐȝİȞȠȢ țĲȜ: That Aphrodite was Aeneas’ mother is
commonplace in the Iliad, as the allusion in 284 (where see n.) to the pas-
sage in Book 20 in which Aeneas himself describes his ancestry makes
clear. Anchises must thus not have kept his relationship with the goddess
secret, and some ancient sources conclude that he was accordingly pun-
ished in the way referred to here (S. fr. 373.2–3; Verg. Aen. 2.649; Hyg.
fab. 94; and see in general Podbielski (1971) 78–9; Lenz (1975) 144–52
(arguing that the story goes back to the Iliou Persis)), hence perhaps the
strikingly concrete nature of the warning (not merely ‘beware lest Zeus
…’, as in e.g. Hermes’ words to Calypso at Od. 5.146, echoed in 290).
Indeed, the fact that the Iliad reports (without explanation) that Aeneas was
raised in his brother-in-law’s house (13.465–6) might be taken to imply
that it assumes a version of the story in which Anchises died while his son
was still young. Alternatively, Aphrodite’s words might be understood as
an empty threat, given the blanket assurances she offers Anchises at 193–5,
before her own situation is mooted, and the fact that Zeus has no obvious
interest in suppressing the story (esp. 45–52); cf. 289–90 n. on 290; van der
Ben (1986) 39 (‘Her threat is therefore both quite absurd and void’); Ber-
gren (1989) 39. There is in any case some irony in the fact that the narrator
has himself told at great length a story the goddess is allegedly so eager to
have no one hear. See in general Clay (1989) 198–200.
ȕĮȜȑİȚ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț: Given the allusion at 281 to Odysseus’
encounter with the Cyclops and its consequences, it is tempting to hear a
specific reference to the description of the hero’s ship and companions at
Od. 23.330 ਩ȕĮȜİ ȥȠȜȩİȞĲȚ țİȡĮȣȞ૵Ț (‘(Zeus) stuck it with a smoking
lightning-bolt’), although note also Hes. Th. 515; fr. 51.2 (both quoted in
the second apparatus)). The adjective describes not so much the lightning-
bolt itself as its effect on the object it strikes, which is left a smoldering
wreck, allowing anyone who sees it hit to attempt to work out the chain of
consequence or guilt that explains the event.
289–290 İ੅ȡȘĲĮȓ ĲȠȚ ʌȐȞĲĮ masquerades as an impersonal statement of
objective fact requiring the complex subjective response described in the
balance of the two verses. But ʌȐȞĲĮ actually means not ‘everything’ but
‘everything (you need to know)’, sc. ‘(in my opinion)’, as also at hAp. 544
İ੅ȡȘĲĮȓ ĲȠȚ ʌȐȞĲĮā ıઃ į੻ ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ĳȪȜĮȟĮȚ (‘You have been told every-
thing (you need to know); safeguard this in your mind!’); also following a
balanced series of positive orders and warnings at the end of a Hymn).
For ıઃ į੻ ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ, cf. also Il. 19.174 ıઃ į੻ ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ*;
20.310 ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ȞȩȘıȠȞ /; Od. 3.26 ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ȞȠȒıİȚȢ.
੅ıȤİȠ, ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ: cf. Poseidon’s order to Tyro after he sleeps
with her at Od. 11.251 ੅ıȤİȠ, ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȠȝȒȞȘȚȢ / (‘Restrain yourself and do
not mention my name!’) and, more generally, the demand for secrecy (sc.
about her new rites) addressed to the Eleusinian nobles by Demeter at
hDem. 478–9. ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ articulates the proper outward expression of
the internal restraint Aphrodite demands of Anchises in ੅ıȤİȠ, while șİ૵Ȟ
įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ ȝોȞȚȞ supplies the positive ground for this restraint and the
action it engenders, and thus identifies the result of the internal process of
cognition and reflection described in ĳȡİı੿ ıોȚıȚ ȞȠȒıĮȢ. At the same
time, ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ converts the detailed set of positive orders in 283–5
into a single, brief negative command, just as șİ૵Ȟ įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ ȝોȞȚȞ
summarizes the hypothetical situation Anchises is urged to avoid in 286–8
in a positive way. The MSS have ȝȘįૅ ੑȞȩȝȘȞİ; but the aorist subjunctive
(rather than the aorist imperative) is normal in prohibitions (cf. the Homer-
ic model for the verse, quoted above), hence Hermann’s present imperative
ੑȞȩȝĮȚȞİ (adopted by all modern editors). Smith (1979) 43–5 advocates
for retaining the aorist subjunctive, on the ground that the construction is
not impossible and the present of ੑȞȠȝĮȓȞȦ is attested nowhere else in
early epic. But as van der Ben (1986) 40–1 points out, the ending -İ (sc.
rather than -ȠȞ) is also unexpected with a first aorist, and Hermann’s
276 Commentary
emendation must be accepted as posing fewer substantial problems than

the alternative.
șİ૵Ȟ įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ ȝોȞȚȞ is modeled on Od. 5.146 ǻȚઁȢ įૅ ਥʌȠʌȓȗİȠ
ȝોȞȚȞ / (‘Beware Zeus’ wrath!’), where Hermes urges Calypso to take
account of Zeus’ likely reaction (Od. 5.147 ȝȒ ʌȫȢ ĲȠȚ ȝİĲȩʌȚıșİ
țȠĲİııȐȝİȞȠȢ ȤĮȜİʌȒȞȘȚ (‘lest somehow he grow angry and deal harshly
with you hereafter’)), if she fails to set Odysseus free, as ordered; and cf.
Thgn. 1297*. But Aphrodite alters the Homeric Hermes’ words to refer to
the anger of multiple gods, meaning herself and Zeus in the first instance,
but also the Olympians as a group, since this is not just specific but good
general advice.
291 That Aphrodite expects eventually to return to the company of the
other gods is apparent from 247–8, where she imagines her altered situa-
tion among them after news of her encounter with Anchises spreads. But
the narrator says only that, once her long speech in 192–290 is over, she
departs abruptly into the Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȩȢ, which he presents as neither the unseen
home of the gods (‘heaven’, i.e. the halls of Zeus) nor the highest part of
the visible sky (cf. Od. 11.17 Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ ਕıĲİȡȩİȞĲĮ / (‘the starry sky’),
which could easily have stood here in place of the otherwise unexampled
Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİȞĲĮ), but simply as the ‘air’ that sits on top of the earth (as
at e.g. Il. 23.868, discussed below) and is full of the winds along with
which (cf. 215–17 n. on 217 ੆ʌʌȠȚıȚȞ ਕİȜȜȠʌȩįİııȚȞ; e.g. Od. 1.98 ਚȝĮ
ʌȞȠȚોȚȢ ਕȞȑȝȠȚȠ (‘along with the gusts of the wind’), of Athena’s progress
over land and sea), one assumes, Aphrodite races off to her destination,
whatever it may be (cf. 292 with n., on Cyprus as a candidate). At the same
time, the phrase recalls the Homeric ʌȠĲ੿ ૓ǿȜȚȠȞ ਱ȞİȝȩİııĮȞ / (280 with
n.), quietly connecting Aphrodite’s adventure with Anchises once again
with the traditional fate of Troy (and see below).
ਵȚȟİ ʌȡઁȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȩȞ is borrowed from the account of Patroclus’ funeral
games at Il. 23.868 and represents a pointed final reference to the inter-
locking tragedies of Priam, Hector, and Achilleus—from which Anchises
and Aeneas, however, will ultimately escape.
292–293 The self-conscious voice of ‘the poet’ returns momentarily at the
end of the narrative, as routinely in the Hymns; cf. in general Smith
(1981a) 100–2 (‘an abrupt but well articulated withdrawal from the world
of the narrated story to the present world of the narrator and his audience’).
Imperative ȤĮ૙ȡİ (literally ‘Rejoice!’, i.e. here ‘Farewell!’; contrast
92* with n.) addressed to the deity is a standard feature of the closing sec-
tion of individual Hymns (e.g. h. 1.D11 West; hAp. 545; hHerm. 579; h.
6.19; 7.58*; 9.7; 10.4* (reworking this line); 11.5*; 27.21 (plural); 28.17;
29.13*; and see the broad-ranging discussion of García (2002) 29–34). The
word is particularly appropriate here, since Aphrodite has just abruptly

vanished from the main narrative (291), although in 293 the narrator pre-
sents himself as the one in motion, perhaps because by that point the god-
dess has been localized again, on Cyprus (below).
ȀȪʌȡȠȚȠ … ȝİįȑȠȣıĮ: The final address to Aphrodite as ‘mistress of
Cyprus’ suggests that the island, and in particular the goddess’ temple in
Paphos (cf. 58–9 with n.), is to be imagined as her immediate destination
when she leaves Mount Ida (291 with n.). If so, the obvious explanation is
that she needs to be washed and beautified by the Graces after her encoun-
ter with Anchises, as at Od. 8.363–6 (after she sleeps with Ares; cf. 58–68
n.), before she returns to Olympus (cf. 129–30 n.). In any case, the refer-
ence at the very end of the poem to Cyprus and to Aphrodite’s authority
over it recalls 1–2 ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ / ȀȪʌȡȚįȠȢ, where see n. (and note ıȑȠ …
ਕȡȟȐȝİȞȠȢ).
ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ: The adjective (for which, cf. 122–4 n. on 123 ਙțȜȘȡȩȞ Ĳİ
țĮ੿ ਙțĲȚĲȠȞ) is not applied elsewhere in early epic to Cyprus; but cf. h.
10.4–5 ȈĮȜĮȝ૙ȞȠȢ ਥȣțĲȚȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİįȑȠȣıĮ / țĮ੿ ʌȐıȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ..
For the mild zeugma ıȑȠ … ਙȜȜȠȞ ਥȢ ੢ȝȞȠȞ to mean ‘(a song about)
you’ vs. ‘a song about another subject’ (left unspecified for the moment, as
the spotlight lingers on Aphrodite), cf. h. 9.[8]; 18.[11]; and the more
common final verse Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥȖઅ țĮ੿ ıİ૙Ƞ țĮ੿ ਙȜȜȘȢ ȝȞȒıȠȝૅ ਕȠȚįોȢ (‘but I
will mention you and another song as well’; hDem. 495 = hAp. 546 =
hHerm. 580 = h. 6.21 = 10.6). For uncontracted ıȑȠ in place of the MSS’s
contracted ıİ૨, see the Praefatio to West (1998) xxii.
ȝİĲĮȕȒıȠȝĮȚ: For the verb used of moving on to a new topic of song,
cf. Od. 8.492 (Odysseus to Demodocus, asking to hear the story of the
Wooden Horse).
The background of h. 6 as a whole, and of its narrative portion (3–18) in

particular, is Hesiod’s account at Th. 188–206, esp. 191–202, of Aphro-
dite’s birth in the sea in the foam produced by Sky’s genitals after Cronus
castrated him (Th. 176–82). Hesiod describes the goddess’ birth and the
places to which the waves carried her (Th. 191–3); connects these details
with her various names and cult-titles (Th. 197–200); and lists her interests
and powers, all of which have to do with seduction and sexuality (Th. 203–
6). In the course of doing so, he also offers a brief account of her first steps
on land on Cyprus (Th. 194–5), and notes that the figures Eros (‘Erotic
Love’) and Himeros (‘Desire’) were with her not only when she was born,
but when she went to visit the other gods for the first time (Th. 201–2).
Hymn 6 presupposes Hesiod’s account (see 1 n., 2 n., 3–5 n.) by ignoring
Aphrodite’s birth and beginning its narrative portion with the goddess in
the sea, seemingly already fully formed (3–5), and by omitting any specific
reference to her emergence onto land (5–6). More important, it fills in
blank spots in Hesiod’s story and expands on details that appear only in
sketchy form there, by offering a detailed picture of the goddess’ passage
through the sea (as opposed to the Theogony’s focus on her arrival at a
series of islands and coasts); describing her reception on Cyprus after she
emerges from the water there (whereas Hesiod mentions the earth’s reac-
tion to the touch of her feet, but nothing more); connecting that reception
with her initial appearance in the company of the other gods (as Hesiod
does not); and offering a detailed account of her initial meeting with the
other Olympians (a matter regarding which the Theogony is silent). The
Hymn ignores the Hesiodic Aphrodite’s ugly origins in intra-family vio-
lence; omits mention of her interest in and control over women’s deceptive
power of seduction (Th. 205); and downplays her connection with physical
pleasure (Th. 206; cf. 19 n.). Nor does it refer to her marriage to Hephaes-
tus, which is the logical consequence of the heated rivalry for her hand
described in 16–17, or its break-up as a result of her affair with Ares, as
described at Od. 8.265–365. Although Aphrodite’s cult-status as mistress
of Cyprus serves to introduce the narrative (2–3), finally, nothing more is
made of it in the balance of the poem. Instead, Hymn 6 focuses relentlessly
on the goddess’ physical appearance, and in particular on how she is
dressed and ornamented (rather than on the shape of her face or her body),
and on her status as an immensely desirable but simultaneously respectable
marriageable young woman. The presence of ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ in 18
in the same sedes as at h. 5.175 does not imply knowledge of the longer
280 Commentary
Hymn (which treats Aphrodite throughout as a daughter of Zeus, e.g. at

5.81, where see n.).
The content of h. 6 is largely ‘descriptive’ or ‘mythic’. For the general
theme of the introduction of a new god to the company of the other Olym-
pians, who are awed by his or her appearance, cf. h. 28 introductory n. 19–
20 imply a contest setting, but nothing more can be said of the original
performance context, although 3–5 (where see n.) imply interest in the city
of Paphos in particular.
13 of the 21 lines (61.9%) feature masculine caesura; while the sample
is small, the statistic suggests a 5th-century date, as for h. 27–8. Cf. Intro-
duction 5.
1 reworks Hes. Th. 194 / ਥț įૅ ਩ȕȘ ĮੁįȠȓȘ țĮȜ੽ șİȩȢ (‘a respectable, beau-
tiful goddess emerged’; of Aphrodite coming out of the sea at Cyprus),
immediately establishing the Hymn’s close relationship to Hesiod’s story
of Aphrodite’s origins.
ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ: cf. h. 5.21 n. The adjective initially appears to refer to the
ĮੁįȫȢ (‘respect’) Aphrodite deserves as the chief divinity of Cyprus (2–3).
But the ĮੁįȫȢ she displays as a proper young woman turns out to be more
relevant to what follows in the narrative section of the Hymn.
ȤȡȣıȠıĲȑĳĮȞȠȞ: cf. 7–8 (where the Seasons give Aphrodite her gold
ıĲİĳȐȞȘ) with n., 18 with n.; h. 5.1 n. (on ʌȠȜȣȤȡȣıȠ૨ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ), 6 n.
(on ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ), 16–17 n. (on gold as the standard material for
objects associated with the gods). The adjective—not in the Hesiodic ex-
emplar, and thus a deliberate addition here—is attested elsewhere in early
epic only at Hes. Th. 17 (of Hebe), 136 (of Phoebe); applied to Aphrodite
also at Sapph. fr. 33.1.
2 ਙȚıȠȝĮȚ: For the emphasis on the activity of the singer rather than of the
Muse (as in h. 5.1), cf. hDem. 1 ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ (also h. 11.1; 13.1; 16.1;
26.1; 28.1); hAp. 1 ȝȞȒıȠȝĮȚ Ƞ੝į੻ ȜȐșȦȝĮȚ (cf. h. 7.2 ȝȞȒıȠȝĮȚ); h. 10.1
ਕİȓıȠȝĮȚ (also h. 15.1; 23.1; 30.1); h. 12.1 ਕİȓįȦ (also h. 18.1; 27.1).
਴ ʌȐıȘȢ țĲȜ: For the relative clause as a standard feature of early epic
proems, see h. 5.2 n.
țȡȒįİȝȞĮ (literally ‘head-scarves’ vel sim.; scarcely ‘veils’, although a
țȡȒįİȝȞȠȞ could be employed as such, as at e.g. Od. 18.210) is also used
of the walls ‘tied around’ a city at Il. 16.100; Od. 13.388 (where see
Hoekstra’s n.); hDem. 151. But here the word also anticipates the descrip-
tion of Aphrodite’s adornment by the Seasons in 5–11.
Given the reworking of Hes. Th. 194 in 1, ȜȑȜȠȖȤİȞ is easily under-
stood as an echo of Th. 203–4 ĲĮȪĲȘȞ įૅ ਥȟ ਕȡȤોȢ ĲȚȝ੽Ȟ ਩ȤİȚ ਱į੻
ȜȑȜȠȖȤİ (‘she controls this honor from the first, and has it as her portion’
[204 del. Paley]; of Aphrodite’s control of young girls’ power of seduction
and the sensuous pleasure associated with it). For the verb used to refer to
an individual deity’s dominion over part of the physical world, cf. Il.
15.90–2 (where an actual process of casting lots appears to be in question;
cf. Janko on 15.185–93); h. 19.6–7 ੔Ȣ ʌȐȞĲĮ ȜȩĳȠȞ ȞȚĳȩİȞĲĮ ȜȑȜȠȖȤİȞ /
țĮ੿ țȠȡȣĳ੹Ȣ ੑȡȑȦȞ țĮ੿ ʌİĲȡȒİȞĲĮ țȑȜİȣșĮ (‘to whom belongs every
snowy hill-crest, the mountain peaks, and the rocky tracks’; of Pan; the
only other attestion of ȜȑȜȠȖȤİȞ in this sedes in early epic). Here Cyprus
falls to Aphrodite simply by virtue of the fact that she first comes to land
there, as 3–5 (which introduce the ‘historical background’ to the cultic fact
articulated in this clause) make clear.
3–5 İੁȞĮȜȓȘȢ facilitates the transition between the description in 2 (where
see n.) of Aphrodite’s authority on Cyprus conceived as a land-mass full of
cities, to the marine setting of the narrative in ੖șȚ țĲȜ.: that the island (in
this section of the Hymn seemingly populated only by deities) lies ‘in the
sea’ matters because Aphrodite emerges from there in what follows.
Homer repeatedly describes the west wind as moist (Od. 14.458;
19.206; cf. ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਕȑȞĲȠȢ) and powerful (e.g. Il. 2.147–8; 19.415–16; cf.
ǽİĳȪȡȠȣ ȝȑȞȠȢ), and as particularly capable of stirring up the sea (Il.
4.422–6; 7.63–4; 9.4–7; Od. 4.402; cf. ț૨ȝĮ ʌȠȜȣĳȜȠȓıȕȠȚȠ șĮȜȐııȘȢ).
The description of the climactic conditions when Aphrodite appeared on
the Cyprian coast thus amounts to a naturalizing version of a crucial ele-
ment in Hesiod’s tale, in which foam (ਕĳȡȩȢ, connected by Hesiod with
the name Aphro-dite) spontaneously appeared around Sky’s genitals as
they floated in the sea, and the goddess grew up out of it (Th. 190–2). Here,
by contrast, the foam is produced by the billows the wind casts on the
shore, and Aphrodite is merely carried onshore along with it. That the west
wind in particular brings Aphrodite to Cyprus implies that she lands at
Paphos (cf. 5–11 n.; h. 5.58–9 n.) rather than at Salamis (cf. h. 10.4 with
n.), which is located on the east coast of the island.
ǽİĳȪȡȠȣ ȝȑȞȠȢ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਕȑȞĲȠȢ is adapted from a line-end formula (see
the second apparatus) that routinely refers to the winds generally rather
than to the west wind in particular.
ʌȠȜȣĳȜȠȓıȕȠȚȠ is focalized on the shore (where waves crash) rather
than further out to sea (where they are by and large silent), and ȝĮȜĮț૵Ț as
well suggests direct physical contact with the foam (cf. h. 5.158 with n.),
sc. as it lies on the sand, where Aphrodite has been carried along with it.
The adjectives throughout these verses are thus easily understood as cap-
turing the experience of the goddess herself, who first feels the moist
wind blowing vigorously at her back (ǽİĳȪȡȠȣ ȝȑȞȠȢ ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਕȑȞĲȠȢ);
then hears the roar of the breakers; and finally finds herself standing on the
beach, her feet covered in ‘soft foam’, on an island that is now hers.
282 Commentary
5–11 No setting is specified for the action described in Ĳ੽Ȟ į੻ țĲȜ., alt-
hough Aphrodite arrived on the west coast of Cyprus in 3–5 (where see n.).
That the Seasons are said to take her in (6 įȑȟĮȞĲ(Ƞ)) suggests that she goes
to visit them, i.e. that they have a permanent residence on the island, where
they store their jewelry when they are not wearing it, and which they leave
when they go off to dance in Zeus’ house on Olympus (11–13); one would
in any case expect the goddess to be draped and adorned (6–11) in private
rather than in the open air. But the Seasons simultaneously play the part of
Aphrodite’s slave-attendants, like the Graces in h. 5 (see 5 n., below).
While she ought not yet, in one sense, to have a home on Cyprus, where
she has just appeared, therefore, the implicit imaginary setting is most
easily taken to be the temple in Paphos referred to at h. 5.58–9 (where see
n.), where her handmaids are already in place to attend to her needs the
moment she arrives.
5 ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ ૡȍȡĮȚ: cf. 12 ૡȍȡĮȚ … ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ; Pi. fr. 30.6–7
ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțĮȢ … / … ૠȍȡĮȢ. At Cypr. fr. 4.1–6, pp. 46–7 Bernabé, the
Seasons make Aphrodite’s robes and dye them the colors of the springtime
flowers, while at Hes. Op. 74–5 they garland Pandora’s head with similar
blossoms. Here they function as Aphrodite’s attendant women, precisely
like the Graces (with whom they are associated at Hes. Th. 901–3; hAp.
194–6; Cypr. fr. 4.1, p. 46 Bernabé) at h. 5.61–3. For the dancing of the
Seasons and their ancestry, see 12–13 with nn. Homer puts them in charge
of the cloud-gates in heaven (Il. 5.749–51 = 8.393–5) and has them care for
gods’ horses when they return home by that route (Il. 8.433–5). See in
general West on Hes. Th. 901; Gantz (1993) 53–4. An ਙȝʌȣȟ (worn by
Andromache at Il. 22.469, along with a țİțȡȪĳĮȜȠȢ, a ʌȜİțĲ੽ ਕȞĮįȑıȝȘ,
and a țȡȒįİȝȞȠȞ) is a hair-band of some sort (ȈD Il. 5.358 and 22.469).
That the ਙȝʌȣțİȢ that belong to the Seasons are made of gold reflects their
divine status (cf. 1 n.); they are thus beautifully adorned, but nowhere near
as beautifully adorned as Aphrodite will be when they are done with her
(7–11). Hesiod uses the adjective of the Muses at Th. 916; elsewhere in
early epic, it is applied only to horses (Il. 5.358, 363, 720; 8.382).
6 įȑȟĮȞĲૅ ਕıʌĮıȓȦȢ: The warm welcome Aphrodite receives from the
Seasons anticipates the even more enthusiastic response of the Olympians
generally, when she appears among them in 15–18 (esp. 15 ਱ıʌȐȗȠȞĲȠ);
cf. 7 n. For the expression, cf. Hes. fr. 30.30 [ਕı]ʌĮıȓȦȢ ਫ਼ʌİį[ȑ]ȟĮĲȠ;
hAp. 63–4 ਕıʌĮıȓȘ … / įİȟĮȓȝȘȞ. For the verb in the sense ‘take in’,
also e.g. Il. 5.158; 14.203; Hes. Th. 479; hDem. 159; hAp. 305, 320; cf.
LfgrE s.v. B I 4.
ʌİȡ੿ įૅ ਙȝȕȡȠĲĮ İ੆ȝĮĲĮ ਪııĮȞ: The implication is that Aphrodite was
nude when she emerged from the sea, and was dressed immediately in
clothing appropriate to a god (ਙȝȕȡȠĲĮ); cf. 7 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȚ with n., 11–13 n.

For the order of the narrative (clothing first, jewelry second, with little
detailed attention to the former), cf. h. 5.64–5, 86–90; Hes. Th. 573–84 (the
first woman, destined to be given to Epimetheus, is similarly nude up to
this point in the story). Variants of the formula are used elsewhere in early
epic only to describe the gods’ handling of the corpses of particularly fa-
vored heroes (Il. 16.670, 680 (Apollo and the dead Sarpedon); Od. 24.59
(the Nereids and the dead Achilleus)).
7–10 The description of the process of adorning Aphrodite’s body (most of
which is now concealed beneath her clothes; cf. 6, and see 10–11 n., 14 n.)
moves gradually downward, from the top of her head (7–8), to her ears (8–
9), to her neck and finally her breasts (10). Cf. h. 5.87–90 with nn.
7–8 7 is adapted from a common early epic line (quoted in the second ap-
paratus) that describes a warrior putting a helmet on his head in preparation
for battle.
ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȚ, like ਙȝȕȡȠĲĮ in 6, marks the emphatic initial recognition of
Aphrodite’s divinity on the part of the Seasons, and explains the alacrity
with which they greet her (6).
ıĲİĳȐȞȘȞ … / … ȤȡȣıİȓȘȞ: cf. 1, where ȤȡȣıȠıĲȑĳĮȞȠȞ can be un-
derstood as a shorthand reference to all the elaborate items of jewelry men-
tioned in 7–11: this is how the Aphodite of cult described at the beginning
and end of the Hymn came to be who and what she is. İ੡ĲȣțĲȠȞ describes
the craftsmanship of the garland; ȤȡȣıİȓȘȞ the material out of which it is
constructed; and țĮȜȒȞ the general aesthetic impression it creates via the
combination of the two.
8–9 ਥȞ į੻ ĲȡȘĲȠ૙ıȚ ȜȠȕȠ૙ıȚȞ: The detail is drawn from the account of
Hera’s self-adornment at Il. 14.182 (quoted in the first apparatus; and cf.
14 n.; h. 5.58–68 n.), and is arguably better suited to the established cultic
Aphrodite of 1–2, 19–21 than to the figure who emerges from the sea in 3–
5, who ought not yet to have had the opportunity to get her ears pierced. ਥȞ
įૅ İ੝ĲȡȘĲȠ૙ıȚ (more closely matching the Homeric exemplar) would do
just as well metrically and would add a subjective element of approval
matching that of 10 in particular.
ਙȞșİȝ(Į): literally ‘flowers’ (as at Semon. fr. 7.66 West2; Pi. ȅ. 2.72;
N. 7.79), and thus presumably ‘earrings that resemble flowers’; cf. h. 5.87
n. on țȐȜȣțİȢ; Sapph. fr. 132.1 ਩ıĲȚ ȝȠȚ țȐȜĮ ʌȐȚȢ ȤȡȣıȓȠȚıȚȞ ਕȞșȑȝȠȚıȚȞ
(‘I have a lovely girl with gold ਙȞșİȝĮ’). The word is first attested here.
ੑȡİȚȤȐȜțȠȣ: ‘mountain-copper’, treated as a precious metal also at
[Hes.] Sc. 122–3 țȞȘȝ૙įĮȢ ੑȡİȚȤȐȜțȠȚȠ ĳĮİȚȞȠ૨, / ૽ǾĳĮȓıĲȠȣ țȜȣĲ੹ į૵ȡĮ
(‘greaves of shining mountain-copper, glorious gifts from Hephaestus’;
Heracles’ armor; distinguished in 124–5 from gold) and Ibyc. PMG
284 Commentary
282(a).42–3 (associated with but different from gold). Stesichorus (PMG

260) and Bacchylides (fr. 51) also use the word. At Criti. 114e, Plato de-
scribes ੑȡİȓȤĮȜțȠȢ as a mysterious substance known in earlier times: ʌȜ੽Ȟ
ȤȡȣıȠ૨ ĲȚȝȚȫĲĮĲȠȞ ਥȞ ĲȠ૙Ȣ ĲȩĲİ ੕Ȟ (‘the most valuable substance known to
people in those days, except gold’); cf. Arist. APo. 92b22 (treated as a
prime example of something no one can effectively define); Call. h. 5.19
with Bulloch ad loc.; Plin. Nat. 34.2 (described as a high-quality ore, the
sources of which have long been exhausted).
10–11 įİȚȡોȚ įૅ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜોȚ: cf. h. 5.14 n. (for the sensual character of
the description), 88 ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜોȚ įİȚȡોȚ with n. For the expression, cf. also
Il. 3.371; 13.202; 18.177; 19.285 (although only 19.825 is erotic, the other
necks being called ‘soft’ in the context of being choked or severed on the
battlefield).
ıĲȒșİıȚȞ ਕȡȖȣĳȑȠȚıȚȞ: cf. h. 5.90 ıĲȒșİıȚȞ ਕȝĳૅ ਖʌĮȜȠ૙ıȚȞ with n.
The adjective is most often used in early epic of clothing (Od. 5.230;
10.543; Hes. Th. 574; fr. 43a.73; hHerm. 250), and it thus properly belongs
to the robes that cover Aphrodite’s breasts (cf. 6 n.) rather than to the
breasts themselves.
੖ȡȝȠȚıȚ ȤȡȣıȑȠȚıȚȞ: cf. h. 5.88–90.
11–13 Ƞੈıȓ ʌİȡ țĲȜ: That the Seasons give Aphrodite their own necklaces
to wear suggests that all the items of clothing and jewelry they furnish her
with in 6–9 are to be conceived in retrospect as theirs as well. (For young
women wearing gold jewelry when they dance in public, at least in part
with an eye to attracting suitors, see h. 5.64–5 n.) But mention of the fact is
reserved for the end of the dressing-scene, to facilitate the transition to 15–
18, where Aphrodite herself, now appropriately dressed and adorned, visits
Zeus’ house and stuns the assembled gods with her loveliness.
ૡȍȡĮȚ … ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ: cf. 5 ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ ૡȍȡĮȚ with n.
țȠıȝİȓıșȘȞ echoes ਥțȩıȝİȠȞ in 11, tying the relative clause together
with the one that precedes it and which it serves to explicate. This is the
only dual in the Hymn, although the poet presumably conceived of a pair of
Seasons throughout, whereas Hesiod (see below) refers to three of them.
੒ʌʌȩĲૅ ੅ȠȚİȞ țĲȜ: For the scene imagined here, cf. Od. 18.193–4
(Aphrodite anoints herself with ‘ambrosial beauty’ when she goes to (par-
ticipate in) the ȤȠȡઁȞ ੂȝİȡȩİȞĲĮ (‘luscious dance’) of the Graces); Hes. Th.
36–43, 68–71 (the Muses—called ȤȡȣıȐȝʌȣțİȢ at Th. 916—make their
way to their father Zeus’ house, where they sing and dance for him); hAp.
194–206 (the Graces and the Seasons, accompanied by a number of other
goddesses, including Aphrodite, hold hands and dance to Apollo’s music,
as Ares and Hermes do acrobatic tricks among them, and Zeus and Leto
look on); h. 5.261 with n.; 27.13–20; and on a human level, Od. 6.154–7
(Nausicaa’s parents are imagined as delighted to watch her ȤȠȡઁȞ

İੁıȠȚȤȞİ૨ıĮȞ (‘entering a dance’)).
ਥȢ ȤȠȡઁȞ … șİ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ įȫȝĮĲĮ ʌĮĲȡȩȢ: i.e. ‘to a dance to be per-
formed by the gods in their father’s house’ (hendiadys). For the Seasons as
daughters of Zeus and Themis, see Hes. Th. 901–3, where their individual
names are said to be Ǽ੝ȞȠȝȓȘ (‘Lawfulness’ vel sim.), ǻȓțȘ (‘Justice’), and
ǼੁȡȒȞȘ (‘Peace’).
14 summarizes the action in 5–11 after the digression on the Seasons’
necklaces in 11–13, in preparation for the transition to the new scene in
15–18. The language is borrowed more or less direct from Il. 14.187 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ
ਥʌİ੿ į੽ ʌȐȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ șȒțĮĲȠ țȩıȝȠȞ (Hera emerges from her chamber,
fully adorned, as part of her plan to seduce Zeus; cf. 8 with n.; h. 5.58–68
n., 64 (modeled on the same verse)), implicitly making the point that Aph-
rodite is now as strikingly attractive as she can be. Cf. h. 27.17 (of Artemis
at a dance) ȤĮȡȓİȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ țȩıȝȠȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ / (‘her skin beautifully
adorned’).
For ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘ as erotic (calling attention to the goddess’ body, which is
not only not described, but has been referred to in 6 only as it is con-
cealed), see h. 5.64–5 n., 172.
15–18 ਥȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ: i.e. to Zeus’ house, where the Seasons themselves
regularly go to dance (and to be admired); cf. 12–13 with n., 16 ਱ȡȒıĮȞĲȠ
with n.; Il. 15.84–5 ੒ȝȘȖİȡȑİııȚ įૅ ਥʌોȜșİȞ / ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚ ǻȚઁȢ
įȩȝȦȚ (‘she entered the company of the assembled immortal gods in the
house of Zeus’); Hes. Th. 285 (a model for the opening of this verse) ੆țİĲૅ
ਥȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ. ǽȘȞઁȢ įૅ ਥȞ įȫȝĮıȚ ȞĮȓİȚ (‘He came to the immortals; he
dwells in the house of Zeus’).
Ƞ੄ įૅ ਱ıʌȐȗȠȞĲȠ țĲȜ is a version of a typical scene in which unex-
pected visitors are met with right hands extended in greeting; cf. Il. 10.542
įİȟȚોȚ ਱ıʌȐȗȠȞĲȠ ਩ʌİııȓ Ĳİ ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȠȚıȚȞ (‘they greeted them with an ex-
tended right hand and gentle words’); Od. 3.35 ȤȑȡıȚȞ Ĳૅ ਱ıʌȐȗȠȞĲȠ țĮ੿
ਦįȡȚȐĮıșĮȚ ਙȞȦȖȠȞ (‘they greeted them with extended hands, and urged
them to sit down’); 19.415 ȤȑȡıȚȞ Ĳૅ ਱ıʌȐȗȠȞĲȠ ਩ʌİııȓ Ĳİ ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȠȚıȚ
(‘they greeted him with extended hands and gentle words’). But in the
reworking here it is specifically the sight (ੁįȩȞĲİȢ) of Aphrodite—i.e. the
impression made by her extraordinary physical beauty (6–13 with nn.)—
that leads the assembled gods to offer her an enthusiastic reception, a point
made again in the summarizing 18 İੇįȠȢ șĮȣȝȐȗȠȞĲİȢ; and they speak not
to her but to Zeus (਱ȡȒıĮȞĲȠ), begging permission to marry her. For Zeus’
authority over the hands of individual female goddesses, cf. the very simi-
lar story involving Hestia at h. 5.24–9.
286 Commentary
That Aphrodite is taken to meet the gods generally and not some subset
of them is implied in 15. But ਪțĮıĲȠȢ (used routinely in early epic with
plural verbs, as at e.g. Il. 1.606; 7.175, 185; Od. 1.424; 2.252; 10.397; hAp.
477; hHerm. 431) makes it clear that her audience is conceived as funda-
mentally male.
İੇȞĮȚ țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ țĮ੿ Ƞ੅țĮįૅ ਙȖİıșĮȚ is hysteron-proteron: to
take Aphrodite home is the concrete action that will establish her in the
position of an individual god’s ‘wedded wife’. For the expression
țȠȣȡȚįȓȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȠȞ, cf. h. 5.127 (quoting Il. 19.298).
For 18, cf. h. 5.84–5 n.
ੁȠıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ: cf. h. 5.175* with n. The reference to Cythera
(for which, see h. 5.6 with n.) is in contrast to the story of the goddess’
arrival on and consequent authority over Cyprus in 2–13, about which
much of the Hymn is built, while the fact that her garland is here made of
violets rather than of gold (contrast 7–8 with n.) makes it clear that she is
no longer being described as she appeared to the other gods in her first
meeting with them (15–17). Instead, her crown is now perishable, like
those that might be offered to her on a daily basis in any of her sanctuaries.
19–20 ȤĮ૙ȡ(İ): cf. h. 5.292*–3 n.
For ਦȜȚțȠȕȜȑĳĮȡİ, cf. Hes. Th. 16 ਦȜȚțȠȕȜȑĳĮȡȩȞ Ĳૅ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ / with
West ad loc. (noting that the first element is from ਪȜȚȟ, not ਦȜȓııȦ); fr.
11.1 ]ȚҕĲȘȞ șૅ ਦȜȚțȠȕ[ȜȑĳĮȡȠȞ]. For ȖȜȣțȣȝİȓȜȚȤİ (a hapax), cf. Hes. Th.
206 ĲȑȡȥȚȞ Ĳİ ȖȜȣțİȡ੽Ȟ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȐ Ĳİ ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȘȞ Ĳİ (‘sweet pleasure, affec-
tion, and gentleness’; the final items in the list of human activities Aphro-
dite controls ‘from the very first’); h. 10.2 (of Aphrodite) ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ į૵ȡĮ
įȓįȦıȚȞ.
įઁȢ įૅ ਥȞ ਕȖ૵ȞȚ / ȞȓțȘȞ Ĳ૵Țįİ ĳȑȡİıșĮȚ: This is the only explicit ref-
erence in the Hymns to a contest in which the singer is competing, although
cf. hDem. 494 ~ h. 30.18 ~ 31.17 ʌȡȩĳȡȠȞİȢ ਕȞĲૅ ੩ȚįોȢ ȕȓȠĲȠȞ șȣȝȒȡİૅ
ੑʌȐȗİȚȞ (‘be eager to grant a comfortable livelihood in return for my sing-
ing’); and the even more oblique h. 10.5 (where see n.); 24.5; 25.1; Race
(1982) 10–14, esp. 11. For the expression ȞȓțȘȞ ĳȑȡȠȝĮȚ (first attested
here), cf. Pi. I. 7.21–2; S. El. 84–5.
਩ȞĲȣȞȠȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ is borrowed from Od. 12.183, where the verb is a
third-plural imperfect indicative rather than a second-singular aorist imper-
ative, and describes the Sirens, the captivating epic singers par excellence.
21 A standard closing verse; cf. h. 10.6 and the other references in the first
apparatus; Richardson on hDem. 495. For the zeugma (‘you’ balanced by
‘another song’), cf. h. 5.293 with n.
Hymn 9: To Artemis
According to Str. 14.646, the Meles River flowed near the walls of New
(i.e. Hellenistic) Smyrna; cf. Paus. vii.5.12, who calls the river’s water
țȐȜȜȚıĲȠȞ and says that Homer was supposed to have composed his poems
in a grotto near its springs (cf. 8–9 n.). Claros, on the other hand, was near
Colophon, and featured an oracular shrine of Apollo (an important figure
in the Hymn; cf. 1–2 n., 5–6 n.) and an unfinished temple (Paus. vii.3.1–2,
5.3–4). But Old Smyrna—which had a long, tangled history of conflict
with Colophon (Mimn. fr. 9 West2 ap. Str. 14.646; Hdt. i.149–50; Paus.
vii.5.1), and was captured and destroyed by Alyattes sometime around 600
BCE (Hdt. i.16.2; Str. xiv.646)—was located about five miles northwest of
New Smyrna, while Colophon lay to the south of it, so that Artemis’ itiner-
ary in 3–6 (which begins at the Meles and passes through Smyrna on the
way to Colophon) only makes sense if the Smyrna in question is New
Smyrna, dating the poem to the time of Alexander the Great or later.
A ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn, presumably connected with one
or more of the places mentioned in it, where the performance referred to in
7–8 must have taken place. Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1963) very tenta-
tively suggest the possibility of ‘a procession in which the Goddess’—i.e. a
cult-statue of her—‘was carried’ from the Meles to Claros, sc. in a chariot
pulled by a team of horses. The fact that the procession—or at least the
portion of it referred to here—begins at a river may suggest a cleansing
(ȖȐȞȦıȚȢ) ceremony, in which a cult statue was washed, anointed, dressed,
and returned to its temple, as in Callimachus’ Bath of Pallas; see in general
Bulloch (1985) 8–12, with further references; Fischer-Hansen and Poulsen
(2009).
1–2 combine and rework two important early epic descriptions of Artemis,
at Il. 20.71 and hAp. 199 (both quoted in the first apparatus). At h. 27.1–3
(where see nn., and cf. the embedded Artemis hymn at h. 5.16–20), the
goddess is also called ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ … ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ (note also Pi. P. 2.9 ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ
ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ) with amplifying adjectives modifying each word, before any
mention is made of her divine sibling, who there wields a sword
(ȤȡȣıĮȩȡȠȣ) rather than a bow. Here, by contrast, more initial emphasis is
placed on Apollo, who is also characterized as an archer (ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ) and
described not just as Artemis’ brother (1) but as having been raised along
with her (2), setting up 5–6 (where see n., and cf. h. 27 introductory n.).
For the opening address to the Muse, cf. h. 5.1 n.
288 Commentary
3–6 For the topography and its implications for the poem’s date and origi-
nal performance context, see the introductory n.
3–4 For the relative clause as a standard feature of early epic proems, see
h. 5.2 n. For the language, cf. Il. 8.438–9 ǽİઃȢ į੻ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ૓ǿįȘșİȞ ਥȪĲȡȠȤȠȞ
ਚȡȝĮ țĮ੿ ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ / ȅ੡ȜȣȝʌȩȞįૅ ਥįȓȦțİ (‘Father Zeus drove his well-
wheeled chariot and horses to Olympus’).
੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ਙȡıĮıĮ ȕĮșȣıȤȠȓȞȠȚȠ ȂȑȜȘĲȠȢ: For the verb (not in Homer
or Hesiod), cf. hAp. 262–3 (the River Telphousa addresses Apollo)
ʌȘȝĮȞȑİȚ ıૅ Įੁİ੿ țĲȪʌȠȢ ੆ʌʌȦȞ ੩țİȚȐȦȞ / ਕȡįȩȝİȞȠȓ Ĳૅ Ƞ੝ȡોİȢ ਥȝ૵Ȟ ੂİȡ૵Ȟ
ਕʌઁ ʌȘȖȑȦȞ (‘the hoofbeats of swift horses, and of mules being watered
from my sacred springs, will bother you’); Euph. fr. 66, p. 42 Powell Ƞ੄ įૅ
Ƞ੡ʌȦ ȈȚȝȩİȞĲȠȢ ਝȤĮȚȓįĮȢ ਙȡıĮȝİȞ ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ (‘they by no means watered
their horses in the Achaean Simoeis’). For the idea, cf. Il. 24.350–1 ıĲોıĮȞ
ਙȡૅ ਲȝȚȩȞȠȣȢ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ੆ʌʌȠȣȢ, ੕ĳȡĮ ʌȓȠȚİȞ, / ਥȞ ʌȠĲĮȝ૵Ț (‘they stood their
mules and horses in the river, so that they could drink’). The adjective (a
Homeric hapax, marking the appearance of it here as a learned allusion to
the epic exemplar) is used at Il. 4.383 of the Asopus River.
૧ȓȝĳĮ: Artemis’ haste reflects the fact that her brother is waiting for
her at the end of her journey (5–6).
ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİȠȞ ਚȡȝĮ: For gold as the standard material for objects asso-
ciated with the gods, see h. 5.16–17 n.
įȚȫțİȚ is a ‘timeless’ hymnic present, just as ਸıĲĮȚ in 6 is a ‘timeless’
hymnic perfect.
5–6 For Apollo’s cult at Claros in the Hellenistic period, see Picard (1922),
esp. 345–9 (on the festivals celebrated there, which included (pp. 346–7) a
ȝȠȣıȚțઁȢ ਕȖȫȞ (‘contest in music’)).
ਕȝʌİȜȩİııĮȞ: a common epithet of places in early epic (Il. 2.561;
3.184; 9.152, 294; hAp. 438), generally line-final and never in this sedes.
ਕȡȖȣȡȩĲȠȟȠȢ (a common early epic epithet of Apollo; see the second
apparatus) links the god closely with Artemis, who is herself twice de-
scribed in 7 (cf. 2) as an archer, including with the adjective ਦțĮĲȘȕȩȜȠȞ,
elsewhere routinely used of her brother instead (a single exception at Il.
15.231, of Hector). Like thus waits for and meets like; but the Hymn is
explicitly addressed to and in honor of Artemis alone (1, 7–9). For
ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ, cf. 2; h. 27.2*. For Artemis visiting Apollo in one of his tem-
ples, cf. h. 27.13–14 (at Delphi).
7 A formulaic line, = h. 14.6 (in honor of the Mother of the Gods, and thus
also late). For ȤĮ૙ȡİ, see h. 5.292–3 n.; Race (1982) 9 (noting that ȤĮ૙ȡİ …
ਕȠȚįોȚ can be understood not just ‘rejoice in this song!’ vel sim. but ‘take
pleasure in this song!’).
8–9 Just as Artemis has moved rapidly from a famous source of poetic
inspiration (see 3 with introductory n.) to a new place in the course of the
Hymn, so too will the poet.
8 is awkwardly expressed and unnecessary to the sense. But those are
weak grounds for expelling the verse from the text, particularly since
ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ (‘I begin to sing’; common in this sedes at the beginning of
Hymns (see the second apparatus)) is patently intended to balance
ਕȡȟȐȝİȞȠȢ (‘after I begin’) in 9. For singing of someone first and last as a
mark of honor, cf. Hes. Th. 34 with West ad loc., 48; h. 1.D9 West; 21.4.
9 is another formulaic line (= h. 5.293 (where see n.) = 18.11 (in honor
of Hermes)).
M and Ȍ diverge so far from one another here, that attempting to determine
which set of readings ought to be preferred is pointless. Instead, these are
better presented as two separate versions of the Hymn, each with its own
interests. Cf. Shackle, CR 29 (1915) 164: ‘The variants strongly suggest
that we have here two versions of the hymn—and older one native to the
Cypriote Salamis … and another when the hymn was adapted by later
rhapsodes to suit any part of Greece—the manipulation leaving its mark in
the barbarous rhythm of the recast line 4.’ Both versions must have been
preserved in ȍ, one as a set of superlinear variants; see 4–5 n., and cf. In-
troduction 6.
The reference in 1 to Aphrodite (whose proper name is never used in
the Hymn) as the ‘Cyprian-born goddess of Cythera’ is balanced by the
description of her in 4–5 as the mistress of Salamis (Ȍ) or Cythera (M),
and of Cyprus as a whole. The terms in which Aphrodite is described in the
relative clause in 2–3 (she offers gifts to mortals generally and is always
smiling, and her appearance awakens ੆ȝİȡȠȢ (‘desire’)), meanwhile, antici-
pate the request in 5 that she demonstrate her allegedly consistently good
mood by providing the poet with ੂȝİȡȩİııĮȞ song.
A ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn, composed (like h. 6) in the shad-
ow of the description of Aphrodite’s birth in Hesiod’s Theogony (see 1–3
n.), but also responding to h. 5 (see 4–5 n.). 4–5 in the Ȍ-version imply an
interest in Cyprian Salamis in particular, and thus perhaps that that version
of the piece was sung for the first time there. There is no other evidence for
the original performance context beyond the standard reference to the sing-
er’s desire for success and another song to come in 5–6.
1–3 1 echoes Hes. Th. 198–9, where Aphrodite is referred to in successive
verses as ȀȣșȑȡİȚĮȞ* and ȀȣʌȡȠȖİȞȑĮ* (with explanations of how she got
the titles as a result of her early wandering in the sea); cf. below on 2
ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚȞ, 3 Įੁİ੿ ȝİȚįȚȐİȚ; h. 6 introductory n. (on the more
extended and systematic response there to Th. 188–206).
ਸ਼ Ĳİ țĲȜ: For the relative clause as a standard feature of early epic pro-
ems, see h. 5.2 n. The reference here is to timeless, general characteristics
of the goddess, who offers her gifts to (all) mortals (ȕȡȠĲȠ૙ıȚȞ / …
įȓįȦıȚȞ); contrast the singer’s specific immediate request (aorist įȩȢ) in 5,
which aims unexpectedly at a different kind of gift and a different sort of
pleasure.
292 Commentary
ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ į૵ȡĮ įȓįȦıȚȞ: cf. h. 6.19 ȖȜȣțȣȝİȓȜȚȤİ with n.; Hes. Th. 206
ĲȑȡȥȚȞ Ĳİ ȖȜȣțİȡ੽Ȟ ĳȚȜȩĲȘĲȐ Ĳİ ȝİȚȜȚȤȓȘȞ Ĳİ (‘sweet pleasure, affection,
and gentleness’; probably the model for both verses). For the ‘gifts of Aph-
rodite’ (sex and all the pleasures associated with it), cf. Il. 3.54; hDem.
102; [Hes.] Sc. 47; Mimn. fr. 1.3 West2 țȡȣʌĲĮįȓȘ ĳȚȜȩĲȘȢ țĮ੿ ȝİȓȜȚȤĮ
į૵ȡĮ țĮ੿ İ੝ȞȒ (‘secret affection, gentle gifts, and bed’).
ਥĳૅ ੂȝİȡĲ૵Ț țĲȜ: Aphrodite’s beauty has two aspects: her face is per-
manently lovely, but smiles (offering and soliciting attention) and blushes
(when that interest and attention are reciprocated) run over it as well, ren-
dering it even lovelier. The adjectives (which set up ੂȝİȡȩİııĮȞ ਕȠȚįȒȞ in
5; see introductory n.; 5 n.) are focalized by the onlooker, in whom the
goddess stirs up desire not just for herself but for others, leading to the
sensual pleasures referred to obliquely in the first half of 2. Allen, Halli-
day, and Sikes (1963) take ਥĳૅ to be in ‘tmesis’ in both 2 and 3 (‘she is
always smiling upon (someone) with her lovely face, and a lovely blush
runs over it’), which is far more difficult in the first instance than in the
second. Cf. Sapph. fr. 1.14 (of Aphrodite) ȝİȚįȚĮȓıĮȚıૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȚ
ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȚ (‘smiling with her immortal face’); 112.4 (of a bridegrooom)
਩ȡȠȢ įૅ ਥʌૅ ੁȝȑȡĲȦȚ țȑȤȣĲĮȚ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȚ (‘desire has been poured over his
attraactive face’).
Įੁİ੿ ȝİȚįȚȐİȚ glosses Aphrodite’s traditional epithet ĳȚȜȠȝȝİȚįȒȢ
(‘smile-loving’; cf. h. 5.16–17 n.) and is thus a tacit response to Hes. Th.
200, where the poet traces the title—much less convincingly—to the fact
‘that she appeared out of ȝȒįİĮ (genitals)’. The standard Homeric form of
the verb is ȝİȚįȐȦ (always in the aorist), occasionally expanded in the
present participle to ȝİȚįȚȩȦ (Il. 7.212; 21.491). For ȝİȚįȚȐȦ, cf. h. 7.14.
Ȍ’s ĳȑȡİȚ requires taking ੂȝİȡĲઁȞ … ਙȞșȠȢ as the object rather than the
subject of the verb (‘and she adds a lovely blush as well’), and M’s șȑİȚ
has generally been preferred by editors attempting to establish a single
authoritative version of the text. For the use of the latter verb, cf. Od. 6.45
Ȝİȣț੽ įૅ ਥʌȚįȑįȡȠȝİȞ Į੅ȖȜȘ (‘a bright radiance runs over [the sky]’);
20.357 țĮț੽ įૅ ਥʌȚįȑįȡȠȝİȞ ਕȤȜȪȢ (‘and an ugly mist runs over [the
earth]’); Sapph. fr. 112.4 (quoted and translated above); Arat. 834 ਩ȡİȣșȠȢ
ਥʌȚĲȡȑȤİȚ (‘a blush runs across [the sun]’).
4–5 again (cf. 1–3 n.) have a significant Hesiodic intertext, in the poet’s
final salutation of the Heliconian Muses at Th. 104 (quoted in the first ap-
paratus). But 4 is more specifically a pointed reworking of h. 5.292 (where
see n.) which, in contrast to that verse, in Ȍ’s version of the text emphasiz-
es the goddess’ control of Salamis (on the east coast of the island), with the
rest of Cyprus now mentioned almost as an afterthought. The request in the
second half of 5 (for which, cf. 1–3 n.) is thus presumably to be granted in
that city, where the performance is taking place. M, on the other hand,
offers a more conventional contrast between the goddess’ two most famous
cult-centers (cf. 1 with nn.). That Ȍ’s version of the is older, with M’s
adapted from it, is perhaps suggested by (1) the fact that the name Cythera
is elsewhere in early epic consistently a neuter plural (Il. 15.432; Od. 9.81;
Hes. Th. 192, 198) rather than a feminine singular, and (2) the normally
unacceptable combination of masculine caesura with word-break at the end
of the third foot.
6 = h. 6.21, where see n. Here the conflation in the course of the poem of
the sensual pleasure Aphrodite typically bestows (1–3) with the gift of
song (5) renders the zeugma even less striking than usual.
Hymn 11: To Athena
In contrast to h. 28 (from which the first verse appears to be adapted), on

the one hand, and h. 5.8–15 (where see nn.), on the other, Hymn 11 puts
exclusive emphasis on Athena’s interest in war, and in particular on her
role in saving (1) and sacking (3) cities, and in protecting troops on the
way to and from battle (4). Nor does the closing invocation mention anoth-
er song to follow, as commonly elsewhere in the Hymns (cf. h. 5.293 with
n.), or a desire for success in a poetic competition or the like (cf. h. 6.19–
20 with n.); and it asks for blessings not just for the singer, but for the au-
dience as a whole (ਙȝȝȚ), who can thus be taken to share the concerns im-
plicit in 1–4. Given the consistent orientation of those verses (above), the
otherwise undefined ‘good luck and good fortune’ requested in 5 are easily
understood as referring to public success in war, and in particular the safety
of the city itself (1) and of its men on their way to and from combat outside
the walls (4) (thus Paz de Hoz (1998) 63); cf. h. 22.7 (to Poseidon) İ੝ȝİȞ੻Ȣ
਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȦȞ ʌȜȫȠȣıȚȞ ਙȡȘȖİ (‘Keep your heart well-disposed, and help
those who are sailing!’, i.e. the city’s fleet). Perhaps there is some connec-
tion with the cult of Athena Areia and Ares (cf. 2) at Acharnae in Attica
(for which, cf. Tod (1948) ii.304; Parker (2005) 398–9, with further bibli-
ography).
A ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn.
1 ~ h. 28.1 (where see nn.), but with ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ (drawn from h. 28.3*; cf.
4 ਥȡȡȪıĮĲȠ with n.) in place of țȣįȡ੽Ȟ șİȩȞ there, emphasizing Athena’s
role as goddess of war in a specifically civic context.
2 įİȚȞȒȞ: applied in the same sedes to Athena herself at Hes. Th. 925 (the
story of the goddess’ birth from Zeus’ head; cf. h. 28 with introductory n.).
2–4 ਸȚ ıઃȞ ਡȡȘȧ țĲȜ: For the description of Athena’s interests, cf. h.
5.10–11 ਕȜȜૅ ਙȡĮ Ƞੂ ʌȩȜİȝȠȓ Ĳİ ਚįȠȞ țĮ੿ ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਡȡȘȠȢ, / ਫ਼ıȝ૙ȞĮȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ
Ĳİ, țĮ੿ ਕȖȜĮ੹ ਩ȡȖૅ ਕȜİȖȪȞİȚȞ with n. For the relative clause as a standard
feature of early epic proems, see h. 5.2 n.
In light of the apparent reference at the beginning of 2 to the descrip-
tion of Athena in the catalogue of Zeus’ children at the end of the Theogo-
ny, ıઃȞ ਡȡȘȧ ȝȑȜİȚ … / ʌİȡșȩȝİȞĮȓ Ĳİ ʌȩȜȘİȢ can be understood as
modeled on Hes. Th. 936 ıઃȞ ਡȡȘȧ ʌĲȠȜȚʌȩȡșȦȚ (‘with Ares the city-
sacker’; cf. Il. 20.152 ਡȡȘĮ ʌĲȠȜȓʌȠȡșȠȞ (‘Ares the city-sacker’)), espe-
cially given the non-traditional character of the language. For Athena as
ʌİȡıȑʌȠȜȚȢ (‘sacker of cities’), cf. Lamprocles PMG 735; Call. h. 5.43
296 Commentary
with Bulloch ad loc. (‘the counter-aspect of ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȢ’). The goddess’

destructive aspects, described in 3, are balanced by her protective ones,
described in 4.
ਥȡȡȪıĮĲȠ is a ‘timeless’ hymnic aorist, and picks up ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ in 1.
4 ȜĮȩȞ is used in its Iliadic sense ‘the soldiers, troops’ (LfgrE s.v. B 2).
ੁȩȞĲĮ Ĳİ ȞȚıȩȝİȞȩȞ Ĳİ: sc. ‘to battle’.
5 ȤĮ૙ȡ(İ): cf. h. 5.292*–3 n.
įઁȢ įૅ ਙȝȝȚ ĲȪȤȘȞ İ੝įĮȚȝȠȞȓȘȞ Ĳİ: cf. h. 13.3 (to Demeter) ĲȒȞįİ
ıȐȠȣ ʌȩȜȚȞ (‘preserve this city!’); 15.9 = 20.8 įȓįȠȣ įૅ ਕȡİĲȒȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿
੕ȜȕȠȞ (‘grant me status and prosperity!’), although there the wish is for
purely personal good fortune); carm. conv. PMG 884.2 (to Athena) ੕ȡșȠȣ
ĲȒȞįİ ʌȩȜȚȞ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ʌȠȜȓĲĮȢ (‘set this city and its citizens upright!’); adesp.
PMG 934.19–22 (to Paean, the god of healing) ੆ȜĮȠȢ įૅ ਥʌȚȞȓıİȠ / Ĳ੹Ȟ
ਕȝ੹Ȟ ʌȩȜȚȞ (‘visit our city in a gracious mood!’); Paz de Hoz (1998) 54–5.
This is the first attested use of ĲȪȤȘ in the sense ‘good luck’. İ੝įĮȚȝȠȞȓȘ is
not attested elsewhere in early epic.
Hymn 12: To Hera
In the course of the Hymn, Hera is praised in increasingly expansive terms

for her timeless independent majesty, but also via repeated reference to
Zeus and his authority. This is primarily a ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’
hymn. But the introduction of a historical narrative element via the relative
clause in 1 opens up the possibility of reading much of what follows as a
series of quiet allusions to Zeus’ courting of Hera and, intertwined with
that, to the defeat of the Titans and the rise of the Olympian generation of
gods: Hera was born to Rhea (1); she is/was beautiful (2) and thus desira-
ble; she was Zeus’ sister but also became his wife (3); he is the lord of the
thunder and the lightning (3, 5), the weapons by means of which the Titans
were defeated, and he reigns supreme among the Olympians in that capaci-
ty (5, although see below); and Hera’s father and Zeus’ predecessor Cronus
is conspicuous by the lack of mention of him. Cf. in general h. 5.40–4 with
nn. But all this only serves to set up the Hymn’s more central and signifi-
cant claim, that Hera is not just Zeus’ bedmate but his equal, as the other
gods acknowledge (4–5). Indeed, the Hymn as a whole might easily be read
as a meditation on Il. 4.58–63, where Hera stakes a claim to have her opin-
ions about the course of the Trojan War taken seriously by her husband:
țĮ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥȖઅ șİȩȢ İੁȝȚ, ȖȑȞȠȢ įȑ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞșİȞ ੖șİȞ ıȠȓ, / țĮȓ ȝİ ʌȡİıȕȣĲȐĲȘȞ
ĲȑțİĲȠ ȀȡȩȞȠȢ ਕȖțȣȜȠȝȒĲȘȢ / ਕȝĳȩĲİȡȠȞ, ȖİȞİોȚ Ĳİ țĮ੿ Ƞ੢ȞİțĮ ı੽
ʌĮȡȐțȠȚĲȚȢ / țȑțȜȘȝĮȚ, ıઃ į੻ ʌ઼ıȚ ȝİĲૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚıȚȞ ਕȞȐııİȚȢ. / ਕȜȜૅ ਵĲȠȚ
ȝ੻Ȟ ĲĮ૨șૅ ਫ਼ʌȠİȓȟȠȝİȞ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȚıȚȞ, / … ਥʌ੿ įૅ ਪȥȠȞĲĮȚ șİȠ੿ ਙȜȜȠȚ (‘For I
myself am a god, and my descent is the same as yours, and I am the most
distinguished daughter born to crooked-counselled Cronus, on both ac-
counts, because of my ancestry and because I am called your wife, while
you are king among all the immortals. But let us yield to one another in
these matters, and the other gods will follow along’). There is nonetheless
considerable—if unintended—irony in the poet’s claim, since Hera’s glory
depends throughout, in one way or another, on that of Zeus, and the Hymn
closes with a reference to him and his power (5 ǻȚ੿ ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȦȚ) rather
than to her.
Human beings are absent from the Hymn, except for the poet’s self-
reference in ਕİȓįȦ in 1, and the terms in which Hera’s majesty are de-
scribed have nothing obviously to do with the mortal world or mortal con-
cerns. All the same, the reverence and honor the other Olympians are said
to show her are patently intended to model a similar reaction for the
Hymn’s audience.
298 Commentary
This and the late h. 8 are the only Hymns that lack a closing invocation
of the deity. In this case, that might be a matter of scribal error, in which
case one would dearly like to know whether only Hera or both Hera and
Zeus were addressed in the missing lines.
1 The alpha in ਕİȓįȦ, long also at Od. 17.519; h. 18.1; 27.1; 32.1; Il.parv.
fr. 28.1, p. 84 Bernabé, is consistently short elsewhere in early epic.
For Hera referred to as ȤȡȣıȩșȡȠȞȠȢ, cf. Il. 1.611; 14.153; 15.5; hAp.
305; and see h. 5.218 n. on the adjective generally.
਴Ȟ Ĳȑțİ ૽ȇİȓȘ: cf. h. 5.43 ȝȒĲȘȡ Ĳİ ૽ȇİȓȘ with n. For the relative clause
(which serves here to set up ǽȘȞઁȢ … țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ in 3) as a standard fea-
ture of early epic proems, see h. 5.2 n.
2 ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ: The MSS’s impossibly flat ਕșĮȞȐĲȘȞ is a result of assimila-
tion to the case of ȕĮıȓȜİȚĮȞ.
For Hera’s beauty, cf. h. 5.41 with n.
ਫ਼ʌİȓȡȠȤȠȞ is attested elsewhere in early epic only at Il. 6.208 = 11.784
(quoted in the first apparatus), in the same sedes, and must be a specific
echo of that—doubtless very famous—line, which captures precisely what
the poet claims throughout is true of Hera, that she ‘always seeks to be the
best and to excel others’.
3 ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥȡȚȖįȠȪʌȠȚȠ is attested elsewhere in early epic only at Hes. Th.
41* (although cf. Il. 15.293 / ǽȘȞઁȢ ਥȡȚȖįȠȪʌȠȣ). But the line as a whole is
a witty reworking of the common Homeric description of Zeus as
ਥȡȓȖįȠȣʌȠȢ ʌȩıȚȢ ૠǾȡȘȢ / (Il. 7.411; 10.329; 13.154; 16.88; Od. 8.465;
15.112, 180). țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਙȜȠȤȩȞ Ĳİ is likewise a standard Homeric phrase
(always of Hera); cf. h. 5.40 with the second apparatus there.
4 țȣįȡȒȞ: cf. Il. 18.184 ૠǾȡȘ … ǻȚઁȢ țȣįȡ੽ ʌĮȡȐțȠȚĲȚȢ ~ Hes. Th. 328.
ʌȐȞĲİȢ (never used to modify ȝȐțĮȡİȢ in this sedes elsewhere in early
epic) is a bit of hyperbole that matches the use of the adjective ȝĮțȡȩȞ
with ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ (by contrast, a standard epic phrase; see the second appa-
ratus), adding additional emphasis to the assertion of Hera’s majesty: it is
not just ‘the blessed ones on Olympus’ but ‘all the blessed ones on great
Olympus’ who honor her as much as they do Zeus.
5 ǻȚ੿ ĲİȡʌȚțİȡĮȪȞȦȚ is part of a line-end formular system that includes
not only the dative, as here (see the second apparatus), but the nominative
ǽİઃȢ ĲİȡʌȚțȑȡĮȣȞȠȢ / (Il. 12.252; 24.529; Od. 14.268; 17.437) and the
accusative ǻȓĮ ĲİȡʌȚțȑȡĮȣȞȠȞ / (Hes. Op. 52; fr. 280.13).
Hymn 24: To Hestia
In the opening lines of the Hymn, Hestia (for whom, see h. 5.22–32 with
nn.) is described as caring for Apollo’s temple at Delphi (1–2), and as so
richly adorned (sc. via the offerings she shares there; cf. h. 5.30–2 with
nn.) that oil literally drips from her hair (3 with n.). In the final two verses,
the goddess is asked to leave Apollo’s home and come to the place where
the Hymn is being performed (4), presumably to bestow similar care on it
and the individuals gathered there, and in particular on the singer and his
song (5). Apollo, it seems, will remain in Delphi; Hestia is instead to be
accompanied on her journey by Zeus in his guise of master of skills of
every sort (5 ȝȘĲȚȩİȞĲȚ). The corruption in 4 (where see n.) makes it impos-
sible to tell how different Zeus’ contribution to the general situation and in
particular to the singer’s performance is to be from Hestia’s. But the fact
that she alone is addressed in the final phrase suggests that the ȤȐȡȚȢ she is
to bestow on the song will involve not just her own characteristic loveli-
ness (cf. 3), but intellectual charm as well; cf. the alleged fondness of
Hestia and Hermes for intelligence and youthful beauty at h. 29.12. That
Apollo is the lyre-player par excellence is ignored in 1–2 (where he is
instead referred to as king, archer, and implicitly prophet), but may none-
theless explain why Hestia is summoned specifically from his house; or
perhaps this is simply her most famous residence (see 1–2 n.), or there is a
more parochial explanation—concealed from us today, at a long temporal
remove from the original performance context—that involves geography,
the cultic preferences of the host of the party (if the Hymn is intended for a
private rather than a public setting; see below), or the like.
A ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn. The ‘Du-Stil’ (and thus the lack
of initial reference to the activity of the Muse or the poet) is reminiscent of
h. 29 (see h. 29.1 n.). But whether the original performance context for this
Hymn as well is a banquet or symposium in a private home (thus Paz de
Hoz (1998) 63; see h. 29 introductory n.), or a public event in a temple
somewhere, is impossible to tell.
1–2 For Hestia at Delphi, cf. Aristonous’ Hymn to Hestia 2–6, pp. 164–5
Powell ਘ țĮ੿ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ / țĮ੿ ȝȣȤઁȞ ȖĮȓĮȢ ȝİıȩȝĳĮȜȠȞ ਕİ੿ / ȆȣșȓĮȞ Ĳİ
įȐĳȞĮȞ țĮĲȑȤȠȣıĮ / ȞĮઁȞ ਕȞૅ ਫ਼ȥȓʌȣȜȠȞ ĭȠȓȕȠȣ ȤȠȡİȪİȚȢ / ĲİȡʌȠȝȑȞĮ
ĲȡȚʌȩįȦȞ șİıʌȓıȝĮıȚ (‘you who always occupy Olympus, the central re-
cess of the earth, and the Pythian laurel, and who dance about the high-
doored temple of Phoebus, delighting in the tripods’ prophecies’). For the
sacred hearth at Delphi itself, cf. Plu. Arist. 20.4.
300 Commentary
1 For the initial vocative, see h. 29.1 n. For the goddess’ name (Ionic ૽ǿıĲȓȘ
vs. Attic ૽ǼıĲȓĮ, with the paradosis ૽ǼıĲȓȘ a hybrid non-form), see h. 5.22
n. For the relative clause as a standard feature of early epic proems, see h.
5.2 n.
Although ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ / is an early epic formula (see the first
apparatus, and cf. h. 9.1–2), ਙȞĮțĲȠȢ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ ਦțȐĲȠȚȠ / is not; but cf. /
ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȚ ਙȞĮțĲȚ at Il. 1.36; / ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞĮ Ĳૅ ਙȞĮțĲĮ at hAp. 15. For Apollo
as ਙȞĮȟ, cf. also Il. 1.75; Hes. Th. 347; [Hes.] Sc. 100.
2 ȆȣșȠ૙ ਥȞ ਱ȖĮșȑȘȚ: For ȆȣșȫȞ or Ȇȣșȫ (rather than Delphi) as the
standard early epic name for the location of Apollo’s sanctuary, cf. h.
27.13–14 n. For the description of the place as ‘sacred’, cf. (in addition to
the passages from early epic cited in the apparatus) Pi. P. 9.71 ਥȞ Ȇȣș૵ȞȚ
… ਕȖĮșȑĮȚ; Bacch. 3.62 ਥȢ ਕȖĮșȑĮȞ … Ȇ[ȣș]ȫ; 5.41 Ȇȣș૵Ȟȓ Ĳૅ ਥȞ
ਕȖĮșȑĮȚ.
3 For pouring perfumed oil on one’s hair (a mark of ostentatious wealth
and luxury), cf. Ar. Ec. 1117 (a slave-girl who has just left an extraordinary
party); Archestr. fr. 60.3 țĮ੿ ıĲĮțĲȠ૙ıȚ ȝȪȡȠȚȢ ਕȖĮșȠ૙Ȣ ȤĮȓĲȘȞ șİȡȐʌİȣİ
(‘and treat your hair with fine perfume dispensed in drops’; advice for
someone planning a fancy banquet) with Olson–Sens ad loc.; Call. Aet. fr.
7.12 ਕʌૅ ੑıĲȜȓȖȖȦȞ įૅ Įੁ੻Ȟ ਙȜİȚĳĮ ૧ȑİȚ (‘and oil always flows from your
locks’; of the Graces); h. 2.38 Įੂ į੻ țȩȝĮȚ șȣȩİȞĲĮ ʌȑįȦȚ ȜİȓȕȠȣıȚȞ ਩ȜĮȚĮ
(‘his hair drips fragrant olive oil onto the ground’; of Apollo) with Wil-
liams ad loc. But here the reference must be in the first instance to the
practice of pouring oil on cult-statues of the gods or their altars; cf. h.
5.61–3 n.; 9 introductory n.; Tibull. ii.2.7 illius puro destillent tempora
nardo (‘Let his temples drip with pure nard-oil!’; of Cornutus’ birth-spirit,
come to visit his altar); Artemid. ii.33 ਕȖȐȜȝĮĲĮ șİ૵Ȟ … ਕȜİȓĳİȚȞ (‘to
anoint statues of the gods with oil’).
ਫ਼ȖȡઁȞ ਩ȜĮȚȠȞ: The adjective is traditional (see the first and second ap-
paratus), but is nonetheless highly appropriate with ਕʌȠȜİȓȕİĲĮȚ.
4 † ਥʌȑȡȤİȠ † is patently a repetition of ਩ȡȤİȠ at the head of the line, which
has somehow driven out an adjective that began with a vowel and agreed
with șȣȝȩȞ. Barnes suggested ਥȪĳȡȠȞĮ (cf. h. 5.102 İ੡ĳȡȠȞĮ șȣȝઁȞ
਩ȤȠȣıĮ /, although İ੡- is a single long syllable there, whereas here ਥȪ-
would be two shorts; but cf. h. 6.7–8 n.). ਥʌȓĳȡȠȞĮ would anticipate the
reference to Hestia’s companion Zeus as ȝȘĲȚȩİȞĲȚ in 5, and would help
explain the presence of the prefix on ਥʌ-ȑȡȤİȠ.
5 ǻȚ੿ ȝȘĲȚȩİȞĲȚ: For the adjective used of Zeus, cf. Hes. Th. 286, 457 /
ǽોȞȐ Ĳİ ȝȘĲȚȩİȞĲĮ; Op. 51, 273, 769; hAp. 344. Homer has only
ȝȘĲȚȑĲĮ ǽİȪȢ / (e.g. Il. 1.175; 2.197; cf. h. 5.202 with apparatus; 28.4,
16). For Zeus and the hearth (ੂıĲȓȘ) invoked together in early epic, Od.
14.158–9 = 17.155–6 (etc.).
ȤȐȡȚȞ … ੕ʌĮııȠȞ ਕȠȚįોȚ: A witty reversal of the typical hymnic clos-
ing, in which the singer asks the god to take pleasure (ȤĮ૙ȡİ; cf. h. 5.292
with n.) in his song.
Hymn 27: To Artemis
A ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn, which falls into two main parts: Ar-
temis the huntress (4–10) and Artemis the dancer and leader of dancers
(11–20, with 11–12 functioning primarily as transition verses). These bal-
anced vignettes are framed by the opening invocation (1–3) of Artemis
alone, and the closing salutation (21–2) to both Artemis and Apollo, with
reference to their parents Zeus and Leto as well. The terms in which the
goddess is described are reminiscent of h. 5.16–20, esp. 18–19, where see
nn. But human beings are absent from the Hymn (contrast h. 5.19–20 with
nn.), and the action is set instead in the mountains among wild beasts (esp.
4–5), on the one hand, and in Apollo’s temple in Delphi, conceived as a
divine residence full of divine visitors (13–14), on the other.
The Hymn responds directly to the major Hymn to Apollo, including
both its ‘Delian’ and its ‘Delphian’ portions (see 11–12 n.), and systemati-
cally reduces that god to a minor figure distinguished primarily by his sta-
tus as Artemis’ brother (3, 19–21); contrast h. 9 with 9.1–2 n. That it was
originally intended for performance at Delphi nonetheless seems a reason-
able guess, given the extravagant description of the place in 13–14 and the
absence of any other clues.
15 of the 22 lines (68.2%) feature masculine caesura, suggesting a 5th-
century date, and there are striking similarities to the structure and lan-
guage of h. 28 (where see introductory n.).
1–3 1–2 (like h. 5.16; 9.1–2, where see nn.) are modeled on the description
of Artemis at Il. 20.70–1 (quoted in the first apparatus). The lines consist
almost entirely of adjectives that describe the two strikingly different as-
pects of the goddess that emerge in the vignettes that follow: she is both a
fearsome huntress who spends her time in the mountains slaughtering wild
beasts (cf. 4–10), and a highly cultured and ‘respectable’ young woman
who sings, dances, and dresses beautifully, all in a firmly domestic context
(cf. 13–20). That the terms in which Artemis’ contrasting aspects are de-
scribed sit awkwardly side by side in the two halves of 2 in particular icon-
ically captures something of her odd and complex character, and of that of
the Hymn that honors her. The mention in 3 of the goddess’ sibling rela-
tionship to Apollo anticipates the reference to his house in 13–14, the song
she sings about their mother Leto in 19–20, and poet’s final salutation in
21–2.
For the long alpha in ਕİȓįȦ, see h. 12.1 n.
304 Commentary
ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȞ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒȞ: cf. h. 5.16* nn. The first adjective de-

scribes Artemis’ appearance by reference to a basic element of her icono-
graphy (see in general h. 5.18 n.; for the goddess’ bow and arrows as a
central organizing element in the narrative in h. 27, cf. 5, 12, 16 with nn,
17 n.), the second the sound of her voice as she hunts. ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ and
ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮȞ in the next verse, on the other hand, describe Artemis’ activity
by reference to its effect or object, on the one hand, and the nature of her
own engagement in it, on the other.
ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ: cf. h. 5.21 n.; 28.3* (of Athena).
ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ is Homeric vocabulary (of a hunter at Il. 18.319), but is
applied to Artemis elsewhere in early epic only at Hes. fr. 23a.21
[ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩ]ȜȠҕȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ*. Cf. Anacr. PMG 348.1–3 ȖȠȣȞȠ૨ȝĮȚ ıૅ
ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜİ / ȟĮȞș੽ ʌĮ૙ ǻȚઁȢ ਕȖȡȓȦȞ / įȑıʌȠȚȞૅ ਡȡĲİȝȚ șȘȡ૵Ȟ (‘I beg you,
Artemis, deer-shooter, blonde daughter of Zeus, mistress of the savage
wild beasts’); carm. conv. PMG 886.3–4 ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ Ĳૅ ਕȖȡȠĲȑȡĮȞ /
ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ (‘and Artemis the savage deer-shooter’); S. Tr. 213–14 ਡȡĲİȝȚȞ
ૅȅȡĲȣȖȓĮȞ ਥȜĮĳĮȕȩȜȠȞ (‘Ortygian Artemis, deer-shooter’).
ȤȡȣıĮȩȡȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ: Apollo is frequently referred to in early epic
as ȤȡȣıȐȦȡ in variants of the line-initial formula / ĭȠȓȕȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ
ȤȡȣıĮȩȡȠȣ (e.g. Il. 5.509). But the standard line-end formula in this sedes
is ਦțĮĲȘȕȩȜȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ / (e.g. Il. 1.370; 5.444), which would make
Apollo an archer too, whereas that role is reserved emphatically for his
sister in h. 27. Cf. 5 ĲȩȟĮ ĲȚĲĮȓȞİȚ with n.; h. 5.16–17 n. (on gold as the
typical material for objects belonging to the gods in early epic).
4–5 An echo of Od. 6.102, 104 (quoted in the first apparatus), where noth-
ing but the epithet ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ, however, makes it clear that the pleasure Ar-
temis takes in the wild animals she encounters in the mountains consists of
killing them. For the relative clause as a standard feature of early epic
proems, see h. 5.2–3 n.
੕ȡȘ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ: ‘Shadowy mountains’ are referred to already in Homer
(Od. 5.279 = 7.268 ੕ȡİĮ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ; also hAp. 34; hHerm. 70), but only in
line-final position and with the uncontracted form of the noun (cf. 6 ȕȑȜȘ
with n.); but cf. the similarly post-Homeric hHerm. 95*. For the connec-
tion between mountains and hunting, and Artemis’ interest in both, see h.
5.18 n.
ਙȖȡȘȚ ĲİȡʌȠȝȑȞȘ: The pleasure Artemis takes in the slaughter
(here blandly characterized as a ‘hunt’; but cf. 6 ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ ȕȑȜȘ with n.,
10) she produces (cf. 11–12) stands in stark—and, from a modern perspec-
tive, horrifying—contrast to the terror she inspires in the natural world in
which she is enjoying herself (6–9).
ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİĮ ĲȩȟĮ ĲȚĲĮȓȞİȚ quotes but reverses hAp. 4 ĳĮȓįȚȝĮ ĲȩȟĮ
ĲȚĲĮȓȞİȚ /, since here it is Artemis rather than her brother Apollo who
wields a terrifying bow; cf. 1–3 n. on 3 ȤȡȣıĮȩȡȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ, 12 n., 16

n.
6 ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ ȕȑȜȘ: i.e. missiles ‘that produce groans in the creatures they
hit’ (cf. 8). ‘Groaning bolts’ (ȕȑȜİĮ ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ) are mentioned also in
Homer (Il. 8.159 = 15.590; 17.374; cf. ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲİȢ ੑȧıĲȠȓ at Od. 21.12, 60;
ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ ȕİȜȑȝȞĮ at Od. 24.180) and Hesiod (Th. 684), and at h. 5.152
(where see n.), but only in line-final position and with the uncontracted
form of the noun; cf. 4–5 n. on ੕ȡȘ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ ~ Homeric ੕ȡİĮ ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ /.
6–9 The terror Artemis inspires—which ought really to be felt by the ani-
mals she pursues (cf. 6 ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ ȕȑȜȘ with n., 8 țȜĮȖȖોȢ șȘȡ૵Ȟ), rather
than by the features of the natural world through which she pursues them—
begins in the mountains and woods (i.e. the wooded mountains) in which
she hunts (țȐȡȘȞĮ / ਫ਼ȥȘȜ૵Ȟ ੑȡȑȦȞ … įȐıțȚȠȢ ੢ȜȘ, resuming 4 ੕ȡȘ
ıțȚȩİȞĲĮ țĮ੿ ਙțȡȚĮȢ ਱ȞİȝȠȑııĮȢ), but then spreads further, to the earth
generally (ȖĮ૙Į) and even the sea with its own creatures (ʌȩȞĲȠȢ Ĳૅ
ੁȤșȣȩİȚȢ). Cf. h. 5.72–4 n. For the reaction of the earth and sea, cf. hDem.
14 with Richardson on 13; h. 28.9–14 with nn.; Pi. O. 7.35–8 (quoted in h.
28 introductory n.).
ਫ਼ʌઁ țȜĮȖȖોȢ șȘȡ૵Ȟ: cf. 6 ıĲȠȞȩİȞĲĮ ȕȑȜȘ with n. țȜĮȖȖȒ (cognate
with English ‘clang’) is a generic term for a sound produced by a group of
men or animals and that is inarticulate on that account (esp. Il. 3.2–6, of the
din produced by the assembled Trojan forces, compared to that of a flock
of cranes taking flight); of the noise made by wolves and lions in the
mountains at h. 14.4.
ʌȩȞĲȠȢ Ĳૅ ੁȤșȣȩİȚȢ is an adaptation of a standard early epic phrase
(e.g. Il. 9.4; 16.746; 19.378; Od. 4.381; 5.420; 10.458, 540; hDem. 34),
which is often line-initial but never occupies precisely this sedes.
9–10 ਙȜțȚȝȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ: i.e. untroubled by the cosmic uproar her ac-
tions have unleashed (6–9).
ʌȐȞĲȘȚ ਥʌȚıĲȡȑĳİĲĮȚ țĲȜ resumes the relative clause in 4–6 after the
digression on the reaction to the goddess’ hunting in 6 ĲȡȠȝȑİȚ–9 ੁȤșȣȩİȚȢ,
preparing for the transition to the new scene in 11–20; and cf. 11–12 n. For
the verb, cf. Hes. Th. 753 / ȖĮ૙ĮȞ ਥʌȚıĲȡȑĳİĲĮȚ (‘she makes her way over
the earth’; of Night/Day); Thgn. 648 ਕȞĮȚįİȓȘ ȖĮ૙ĮȞ ਥʌȚıĲȡȑĳİĲĮȚ (‘shame-
less, she makes her way over the earth’; of the personified Aidôs); Anacr.
PMG 357.4–5 ਥʌȚıĲȡȑĳİĮȚ / įૅ ਫ਼ȥȘȜ੹Ȣ ੑȡȑȦȞ țȠȡȣĳȐȢ (‘you make your
way over the lofty mountain peaks’; of Dionysus).
11–12 Į੝Ĳ੹ȡ ਥʌ੽Ȟ ĲİȡĳșોȚ resumes 5 ਙȖȡȘȚ ĲİȡʌȠȝȑȞȘ (cf. 9–10 with n.)
retrospectively, just as the adjectives șȘȡȠıțȩʌȠȢ ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ that follow in
306 Commentary
the second half of 11 resume in epithet-form the action described in 5

ʌĮȖȤȡȪıİĮ–6 ȕȑȜȘ.
șȘȡȠıțȩʌȠȢ (first attested here; subsequently also of Artemis at
Bacch. 11.107; Phil. AP vi.240.1 = GPh 2648 (probably a learned refer-
ence to this passage)) is ‘who looks for wild beasts’, sc. ‘in order to shoot
them’; cf. 2 ਥȜĮĳȘȕȩȜȠȞ*.
İ੝ĳȡȒȞȘȚ į੻ ȞȩȠȞ: The pleasure (ĲȑȡȥȚȢ) Artemis has got from sys-
tematically (note 10 ʌȐȞĲȘȚ ਥʌȚıĲȡȑĳİĲĮȚ) hunting down and killing ani-
mals in the mountains alters her mood, allowing her to move on to the
more civilized and social behavior appropriate to a ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȢ ĮੁįȠȓȘ (2)
described in 13–20 (esp. 15, 17–19). The phrase is modeled on Homeric
expressions such as șȣȝઁȞ ਩ĲİȡʌİȞ (Il. 9.189), on the one hand, and the
middle-passive ȝȘįȑ ĲȚ ȤİȓȡȠȞȠȢ ਕȞįȡઁȢ ਥȣĳȡĮȓȞȠȚȝȚ ȞȩȘȝĮ (Od. 20.82), on
the other. But elsewhere in early epic, the verb in the active always refers
to bringing joy to others rather than to oneself (or one’s own mind, as
here).
ȤĮȜȐıĮıૅ İ੝țĮȝʌȑĮ ĲȩȟĮ: The verb is attested elsewhere in early epic
only at hAp. 6 ȕȓȠȞ Ĳૅ ਥȤȐȜĮııİ, where Leto unstrings Apollo’s bow and
caps his quiver after he enters Zeus’ house menacing the other gods with
his weapons (hAp. 2–4). Given the other echoes of and allusions to the
Hymn to Apollo at 5, 13–14, 16, and 18–20 (and see in general 13–20 n.),
12–20 as a whole are easily understood as a pointed reworking of the older
Hymn that casts Artemis as a more controlled and gracious figure than her
brother, if only because she expresses her own fierce aggressiveness in
other contexts (4–10). The standard early epic epithets of bows are
țȐȝʌȣȜĮ (‘bent’; e.g. Il. 3.17; 5.97; hAp. 131; hHerm. 515), ਙȖțȣȜĮ
(‘curved’; e.g. Il. 5.209; Od. 21.264), and ʌĮȜȓȞĲȠȞĮ (16 with n.). But
İ੝țĮȝʌȑĮ here is presumably not ‘well-bent’ (describing the bow’s con-
struction or form) but ‘easily bent, flexible’, referring to how it responds
when Artemis goes to unstring it, like the ‘smoothly turning’ key in Penel-
ope’s hand at Od. 21.6 țȜȘ૙įૅ İ੝țĮȝʌȑĮ and the sickle that ‘moves easily
in a circle’ mentioned by Odysseus in connection with a reaping-contest at
Od. 18.368 įȡȑʌĮȞȠȞ … İ੝țĮȝʌȑȢ.
13–20 This is in many ways a generic scene; cf. Il. 1.603–4 (Apollo plays
the lyre in Zeus’ house while the Muses sing); Od. 18.193–4 (Aphrodite
anoints herself with beauty whenever she goes to a ‘luscious dance of the
Graces’); Hes. Th. 36–43 (the Muses sing for Zeus in his house); h. 5.261
(the nymphs dance in the presence of the Olympian gods, sc. in Zeus’
house) with n.; 6.11–13 (the Seasons wear special necklaces when they go
to dance with the other gods in Zeus’ house); 19.19–27 (the mountain-
nymphs dance with Pan and sing a hymn in honor of his father Hermes in
particular). But the description of the dance of Artemis, the Muses, and the
Graces in Apollo’s house in Delphi is best read specifically against hAp.

186–206, where the action is set on Olympus (186–7) and Zeus and Leto
make up the audience (204–6); the Muses sing (189–93); the Graces and
the Seasons, accompanied by Harmonia, Hebe, and Aphrodite, do a line- or
circle-dance (194–6); Ares and Hermes perform acrobatic tricks (200–1);
Apollo, beautifully dressed, plays the lyre (201–3) and is the focus of the
internal audience’s admiring attention (204–6, esp. 206); ‘and among the
women performs one who is neither unattractive nor short, but quite large
and wonderful in appearance, Artemis ੁȠȤȑĮȚȡĮ, Apollo’s sibling’ (197–9,
quoted in the first apparatus). Here, however, Artemis is not just one of the
dancers, even if the most richly described of them, but organizes and leads
the choruses (15 ȤȠȡઁȞ ਕȡĲȣȞȑȠȣıĮ, 17 ਲȖİ૙ĲĮȚ, 18 ਥȟȐȡȤȠȣıĮ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ; cf.
19–20 n.); her costume alone is described (17); Apollo and his lyre-playing
receive no mention, beyond the observations that the action takes place in
his house (13–14), and that the song sung by Artemis, the Muses, and the
Graces celebrates both of Leto’s children (19–20, cf. 21); and Zeus too is
absent from the scene, in part as a consequence of the fact that the setting
is no longer his house but Apollo’s temple in Delphi.
13–14 ਥȢ ȝȑȖĮ į૵ȝĮ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ ĳȓȜȠȚȠ: i.e. to the temple whose con-
struction is described at hAp. 294–9, where the poet calls it ਕȠȓįȚȝȠȞ …
Įੁİȓ (‘a subject of song forever’). Ĭ’s ȝİĲ੹ țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ ĳȓȜȠȚȠ represents
the intrusion of a superlinear variant for ȝȑȖĮ into the text.
ǻİȜĳ૵Ȟ ਥȢ ʌȓȠȞĮ įોȝȠȞ: Delphi is consistently referred to elsewhere
in early epic as ȆȣșȫȞ or Ȇȣșȫ (Il. 2.519; 9.405; Od. 8.80; 11.581; hAp.
183, 372, 517; hHerm. 178; h. 24.2). The gratuitously flattering descrip-
tions of the place and of the temple there (cf. hHerm. 178 ਥȢ Ȇȣș૵ȞĮ ȝȑȖĮȞ
įȩȝȠȞ ਕȞĲȚĲȠȡȒıȦȞ (‘to Pytho, to burgle [Apollo’s] large house’)) support
the notion that the original performance-context was a festival in Delphi;
cf. introductory n.
15–18 15 defines a purpose only realized in 17–18, after Artemis has made
her way to Apollo’s house (13–14, resumed in 16 ਩ȞșĮ) and hung up the
bow (16) she unstrung before setting off on her journey (12).
15 ȂȠȣı૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ȋĮȡȓĲȦȞ: For the Muses, see h. 5.1 n., and cf. Hes. Th.
917 ĲોȚıȚȞ ਚįȠȞ șĮȜȓĮȚ țĮ੿ ĲȑȡȥȚȢ ਕȠȚįોȢ (‘festivities delight them, and the
pleasure of song’). For the Graces, see h. 5.61 n.
16 țĮĲĮțȡİȝȐıĮıĮ: sc. from a wall-peg, as explicitly at hAp. 8–9 ĲȩȟȠȞ
ਕȞİțȡȑȝĮıİ ʌȡઁȢ țȓȠȞĮ ʌĮĲȡઁȢ ਦȠ૙Ƞ / ʌĮııȐȜȠȣ ਥț ȤȡȣıȑȠȣ (‘she hangs
his bow from a column of his father’s house, from a gold peg’; Leto con-
tinues the process of calming Apollo), to which the verse responds. For
308 Commentary
wall-pegs used to store bows, cf. Il. 5.209; Od. 21.53; Simon. PMG
519.41(a).3.
ʌĮȜȓȞĲȠȞĮ: a standard Homeric epithet of bows (Il. 8.266*; 10.459;
15.443; Od. 21.11; cf. 11–12 n. on İ੝țĮȝʌȑĮ), appropriately used here of
one that is unstrung (cf. 12), as also at Od. 21.11 and probably Il. 10.459.
ੁȠȪȢ: i.e., via synecdoche, the quiver (ĳĮȡȑĲȡȘ) that contains them
(e.g. Il. 1.45–6; 4.116; 8.323; 15.443–4 ĲȩȟȠȞ … ʌĮȜȓȞĲȠȞȠȞ ਱į੻ ĳĮȡȑĲȡȘȞ
/ ੁȠįȩțȠȞ (‘a back-bent bow and a quiver that held his arrows’; of Apollo);
Od. 21.11–12, 59–60; 22.2; hAp. 6; Hes. [Sc.] 129–30).
17 ȤĮȡȓİȞĲĮ ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૗ țȩıȝȠȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ: cf. h. 6.14 with nn. But here the
detail is left undeveloped (who dressed Artemis? when? in what garments
or jewelry?), its place in the background narrative having been taken by the
careful treatment of the goddess’ handling of her bow (12, 16).
18 ਥȟȐȡȤȠȣıĮ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ: For the verb with an accusative object (rather than
a genitive, as generally), cf. Il. 2.273 ȕȠȪȜĮȢ Ĳૅ ਥȟȐȡȤȦȞ ਕȖĮșȐȢ.
ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȘȞ ੕ʌૅ ੂİ૙ıĮȚ is modeled on passages such as Od. 12.192
ੂİ૙ıĮȚ ੕ʌĮ țȐȜȜȚȝȠȞ (the Sirens); Hes. Th. 10 ʌİȡȚțĮȜȜȑĮ ੕ııĮȞ ੂİ૙ıĮ /, 43
ਙȝȕȡȠĲȠȞ ੕ııĮȞ ੂİ૙ıĮȚ /, 65 ਥȡĮĲ੽Ȟ … ੕ııĮȞ ੂİ૙ıĮȚ /; cf. Hes. Th. 69
ਕȝȕȡȠıȓȘȚ ȝȠȜʌોȚ (all of the Muses). The adjective (literally ‘immortal’) is
flat and tautologous, if it means only that goddesses produced the voice in
question, and the sense must be instead that the voice is extraordinarily
beautiful (cf. Od. 12.192; Hes. Th. 10, 65 (all quoted above)), sc. as only
the voice of immortal singers can be (as presumably also at Hes. Th. 43, cf.
69 (both also quoted above)).
19–20 At hAp. 204–6, Zeus and Leto watch Apollo (and, secondarily, other
gods and goddesses, including Artemis) sing, dance, and play the lyre,
while at Hes. Th. 36–79 (where the Muses’ song is jumbled up with Hesi-
od’s own) Zeus delights in hearing his own accomplishments praised
above all others. But even if Leto is not specifically imagined as present in
Apollo’s temple in Delphi and watching the performance, everything that
goes on there is done in her honor and is thus directed to her in that sense
at least.
țĮȜȜȓıĳȣȡȠȞ is erotic, in that a reference to the beauty of one of the
few bits of flesh not covered by a woman’s robes hints at the greater
charms of what is concealed within them; cf. 21 ਱ȣțȩȝȠȚȠ with n.; h. 5.64–
5 n. on ʌİȡ੿ ȤȡȠ૘, 87–90 n. on ੖ȡȝȠȚ įૅ țĲȜ. Given the summary of the
content of the song that follows in the second half of the verse, the adjec-
tive can accordingly be understood not just as generic praise of Leto, but as
a description of the quality that attracted Zeus to her in the first place and
led to the birth of their children. For an erotic song in honor of one’s moth-
er, cf. hHerm. 57–61, where Hermes sings of how Zeus and Maia made
love, i.e. of his own conception, and then goes on to praise everything
connected with Maia in particular; and note h. 19.30–9 (Pan sings of how
Hermes got his mother pregnant, and of how she ran away in fear at her
first sight of him). țĮȜȜȓıĳȣȡȠȢ is applied in early epic to a wide variety of
mortal women and goddesses, including Danae, Ino, Hebe, Demeter, Leda,
Alcmene, and Hermione.
ȕȠȣȜોȚ Ĳİ țĮ੿ ਩ȡȖȝĮıȚȞ ਩ȟȠȤૅ ਕȡȓıĲȠȣȢ: Artemis’ ‘deeds’ are on dis-
play in the first half of the Hymn (esp. 4–6, 9–10), while her repeatedly
remarked-upon direction of (rather than mere participation in) the dances
of the Muses and the Graces (15, 17–18) demonstrates her skill at offering
counsel. Apollo, meanwhile, has his gold sword (3; ~ ਩ȡȖȝĮĲĮ) and his role
at Delphi, sc. as a prophet (13–14; ~ ȕȠȣȜȒ). But he remains a shadowy
and secondary character here, and both mentions of him and his powers
also refer to what is more important for the purposes of the Hymn, viz. his
status as Artemis’ brother (3 Į੝ĲȠțĮıȚȖȞȒĲȘȞ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ, 13–14
țĮıȚȖȞȒĲȠȚȠ ĳȓȜȠȚȠ / ĭȠȓȕȠȣ ਝʌȩȜȜȦȞȠȢ). ਩ȡȖȝĮ is not Homeric vocabu-
lary, but is attested already in Hesiod (Th. 801, 823; cf. h. 29.9–12 n.;
32.19; Bacch. 14.17).
21–22 closely resemble h. 25.6–7 (in honor of the Muses and Apollo).
ȤĮȓȡİĲİ: cf. h. 5.292–3 n.
ĲȑțȞĮ ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿ ȁȘĲȠ૨Ȣ ਱ȣțȩȝȠȚȠ: For Leto as ‘fair-haired’, cf. the
common early epic line-end formula (of Apollo) ĲઁȞ/੔Ȟ ਱ȣțȩȝȠȢ Ĳȑțİ
ȁȘĲȫ / (Il. 1.36; 19.413; Od. 11.318; hAp. 178), and see Olson–Sens on
Archestr. fr. 5.1 = SH 135.1 (on ancient grooming practices). The adjective
(also used of e.g. Briseis, Helen, Thetis, Athena, Hera, Calypso, Doris,
Astreis, and Demeter) is again erotic; cf. on 19 țĮȜȜȓıĳȣȡȠȞ. The saluta-
tion thus recapitulates the content of the song of the Muses and the Graces
as summarized in 19–20, this time with more emphasis on Artemis and
Apollo. For Leto, Artemis, and Apollo all praised together, cf. hAp. 158–9
(the Delian maidens’ prelude to a song about ‘ancient men and women’
(160–1)).
22 is a standard final line for Hymns honoring two or more deities (see
the first apparatus); cf. h. 6.21 (a closely related formula for a Hymn to a
single god) with n.
Hymn 28: To Athena
The central portion of the Hymn (4–16) is concerned with the story of the
birth of Athena from Zeus’ head, for which cf. Hes. Th. 924–6 Į੝ĲઁȢ įૅ ਥț
țİĳĮȜોȢ ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįĮ ȖİȓȞĮĲૅ ਝșȒȞȘȞ, / įİȚȞ੽Ȟ ਥȖȡİțȪįȠȚȝȠȞ ਕȖȑıĲȡĮĲȠȞ
ਕĲȡȣĲȫȞȘȞ, / ʌȩĲȞȚĮȞ, ਸȚ țȑȜĮįȠȚ Ĳİ ਚįȠȞ ʌȩȜİȝȠȓ Ĳİ ȝȐȤĮȚ Ĳİ (‘But [Zeus]
himself produced from his head gleaming-eyed Athena, a fear-inspiring
rouser of clamor and an unwearied leader of the army, a lady to whom
cries, wars, and fights are pleasing’) with West on 886–900; fr. 343.10–12
਴ įૅ Į੝ĲȓțĮ ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȒȞȘȞ / țȪıĮĲȠā Ĳ੽Ȟ ȝ੻Ȟ ਩ĲȚțĲİ ʌĮĲ੽ȡ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ Ĳİ
șİ૵Ȟ Ĳİ / ʌ੹ȡ țȠȡȣĳȒȞ, ȉȡȓĲȦȞȠȢ ਥʌૅ ੕ȤșȘȚıȚȞ ʌȠĲĮȝȠ૙Ƞ (‘[Metis] imme-
diately became pregnant with Pallas Athena; but the father of men and
gods gave birth to her from his head, on the banks of the River Triton’),
18–19 ĮੁȖȓįĮ ʌȠȚȒıĮıĮ ĳȠȕȑıĲȡĮĲȠȞ ਩ȞĲȠȢ ਝșȒȞȘȢā / ıઃȞ ĲોȚ ਥȖİȓȞĮĲȩ ȝȚȞ,
ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ (‘producing Athena’s equipment, the army-
frightening aegis; equipped with which he gave birth to her dressed in war-
gear’; of Metis in 18, of Zeus in 19); hAp. 308–9 ȀȡȠȞȓįȘȢ ਥȡȚțȣįȑĮ
ȖİȓȞĮĲૅ ਝșȒȞȘȞ / ਥȞ țȠȡȣĳોȚ (‘the son of Cronus gave birth to glorious
Athena upon his head’); Stesich. PMG 233 [Ĳİ]ȪҕȤİıȚ ȜĮȝʌȠȝȑȞ[ … ] ҕ
ȩȡȠȣıİȞ ਥʌ ૅ İ੝ȡİ૙ĮȞ Ȥș[ȩ]ȞĮ (‘brilliant with armor … arose upon the wide
earth’) with Page ad loc.; Ibyc. PMG 298.3–4 [Ĳ੹]Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ ਩ĲȚțĲİ‫ۃ‬Ȟ‫ ۄ‬Į੝ĲȩȢ, /
țȠȡȣĳ઼Ȣ įȑ Ƞੂ ਥȟĮȞȑʌĮȜĲȠ (‘for he himself gave birth to her, and she leapt
forth on top of his head’; of Zeus in 3, of Athena in 4); Epich. fr. 135; Pi.
O. 7.35–8 ਖȞȓȤૅ ૽ǹĳĮȓıĲȠȣ ĲȑȤȞĮȚıȚȞ / ȤĮȜțİȜȐĲȦȚ ʌİȜȑțİȚ ʌĮĲȑȡȠȢ
ਝșĮȞĮȓĮ țȠȡȣĳ੹Ȟ țĮĲૅ ਙțȡĮȞ / ਕȞȠȡȠȪıĮȚıૅ ਕȜȐȜĮȟİȞ ਫ਼ʌİȡȝȐțİȚ ȕȠ઼Țā /
ȅ੝ȡĮȞઁȢ įૅ ਩ĳȡȚȟȑ ȞȚȞ țĮ੿ īĮ૙Į ȝȐĲȘȡ (‘when by Hephaestus’ skills,
through the stroke of a bronze-forged ax, Athena arose on the very top of
her father’s head and shouted with an enormous cry; and Heaven shud-
dered at her, as did Mother Earth’; the first reference in literature to He-
phaestus splitting Zeus’ head to allow Athena to emerge, although the de-
tail is common in art well before this); Kauer (1959) (without reference to
this Hymn); Gantz (1993) 51–2, 83–4. For other Hymns in honor of Athe-
na, see h. 5.8–15; 11. For the general theme of the introduction of a new
god to the company of the others, who are awed by his or her appearance,
cf. h. 6.15–18; and see 7–9 n. on ੑȟઃȞ ਙțȠȞĲĮ.
The Hymn begins with an enormous heap of epithets, adjectives, and
descriptive phrases reminiscent of h. 27.1–3. Some of these (mostly clus-
tered at the beginnings of the lines) are conventionally applied to Athena in
early epic, and stress her status as an attractive young woman, while others
(mostly in the second halves of the lines) are less traditional, and serve to
312 Commentary
bring out the goddess’ interest in martial affairs. Cf. the similar dichotomy
at h. 5.10–15. The story in 4–16 combines both aspects of Athena’s charac-
ter, by describing how she was born to Zeus wearing a full set of armor (5,
15) and brandishing a spear (9). Human beings are absent from the Hymn,
as also from h. 27. For additional similarities to h. 27, cf. 3 ʌȐȡșİȞȠȞ
ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ (in the same sedes at h. 27.2), 9–14 (cf. h. 27.6–9) with n., 9–10 n.
on 10 ਫ਼ʌઁ ȕȡȓȝȘȢ ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ.
9 of the 18 lines (50%) feature masculine caesura, and while this is far
from conclusive evidence, it is most naturally taken as suggesting a 5th-
century date for both h. 27 (68.2% masculine caesura) and h. 28; cf. h. 6
introductory n. It is accordingly tempting to see a connection with the east
pediment of the Parthenon, which likewise featured not just Athena, Zeus,
and Hephaestus at the moment of the goddess’ birth, but also the presence
of Helios and his horses (13–14) at the scene.
A ‘narrative’ or ‘mythic’ hymn. There is no indication of the original
performance setting, beyond the conventional reference to another song to
follow in, although see h. 11 introductory n.
1 is reworked at h. 11.1 (where see n.).
ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ: a standard early epic phrase in this sedes; cf. the
second apparatus. The etymology of ȆĮȜȜȐȢ is uncertain, nor do we know
how the early poets understood it (which is a separate matter); it may orig-
inally have meant ‘young woman’ vel sim. Cf. LfgrE s.v. Ȃ ǿ; Olson
(2007) 54. But some ancient scholarship seems to have connected the title
with ʌȐȜȜȦ, ‘brandish (sc. a spear)’, in which case the first word of the
Hymn anticipates the description of Athena leaping, fully armed, from
Zeus’ head at 8–9 (cf. 5–6).
țȣįȡ੽Ȟ șİȩȞ amounts to little more than an assertion that Athena does,
in fact, deserve to be hymned (hence ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ), with the reasons
gradually supplied in the verses that follow. For the combination of adjec-
tive and noun (not Homeric), see Richardson on hDem. 66.
ਙȡȤȠȝૅ ਕİȓįİȚȞ: For hymnic openings of this sort, see Race (1982) 5–
6.
2 ȖȜĮȣț૵ʌȚȞ: cf. 10; h. 5.8 n. The word is attested in this sedes nowhere
else in early epic.
ʌȠȜȪȝȘĲȚȞ: Elsewhere in early epic, the adjective is conventionally
applied not to Athena herself, but to her favorite Odysseus (e.g. Il. 1.311,
440; 3.200; Od. 5.214; 7.207; but cf. Il. 21.355 (of Hephaestus); hHerm.
319 (of Hermes)). Here the word anticipates the reference to the goddess’
father Zeus as ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ in 4, and recalls the name of her mother Metis (see
introductory n.). Cleverness is a traditional part of Athena’s character (esp.
Od. 13.298–9 ਥȖઅ įૅ ਥȞ ʌ઼ıȚ șİȠ૙ıȚ / ȝȒĲȚ Ĳİ țȜȑȠȝĮȚ țĮ੿ țȑȡįİıȚȞ (‘I am
famous among all the gods for cleverness and for pursuing my own inter-
ests’; cf. h. 5.12–15; 20.2–3), but is otherwise ignored in the Hymn, which
concentrates on her fearsome martial aspect.
ਕȝİȓȜȚȤȠȞ ਷ĲȠȡ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ is borrowed from Il. 9.572, where it describes
the Erinys (‘Fury’) called up from the Underworld by Althaea to punish
her son Meleager.
3 ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ: cf. h. 5.21 n.; 27.2* (of Artemis).
ਥȡȣıȓʌĲȠȜȚȞ (a Homeric hapax at Il. 6.305 (also of Athena; see the
first apparatus); subsequently at A. Th. 129–30 ૧ȣıȓʌȠȜȚȢ ȖİȞȠ૨ / ȆĮȜȜȐȢ
(‘Prove yourself Athena the city-defender!’) is the only reference in the
Hymn to the human world and thus to the potential utility of gaining the
goddess’ favor (although cf. 17–18 with n.). Contrast h. 11, where the
word has been incorporated into the reworking of h. 28.1 in the opening
verse in the same sedes.
ਕȜțȘȑııĮȞ is a hapax legomenon, but is cognate with ਕȜțȒ and must
mean ‘valiant’ or the like. The word thus amounts to a gloss on the one that
precedes it, in that it explains how it is that Athena ‘defends the city’.
4 ȉȡȚĲȠȖİȞો: a traditional epithet of Athena, but always in the form
ȉȡȚĲȠȖȑȞİȚĮ and never at the head of the line (Il. 4.515; 8.39 = 22.183; Od.
3.378; Hes. Th. 895; [Hes.] Sc. 197). The original meaning of the word is
obscure (bibliography in LfgrE s.v. L). But Hes. fr. 343.11–12 (quoted in
the introductory n.; and cf. 5 with n.) connects it with the goddess’ birth
from Zeus’ head ‘on the banks of the River Triton’, and -ȖİȞો is in any
case picked up in ਥȖİȓȞĮĲȠ in the relative clause that follows, which an-
nounces the subject of the narrative portion of the Hymn.
Į੝ĲઁȢ ਥȖİȓȞĮĲȠ is borrowed from Il. 5.880, where Ares complains to
Zeus about the ‘ruinous’ daughter that ‘you yourself produced’ (Į੝ĲઁȢ
ਥȖİȓȞĮȠ*; cf. also Hes. Th. 924 Į੝ĲઁȢ įૅ ਥț țİĳĮȜોȢ ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįĮ ȖİȓȞĮĲૅ
ਝșȒȞȘȞ, quoted at greater length and translated in the introductory n.). But
the reference to the king of the gods at the close of the line as ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ
(cf. 2 n. on ʌȠȜȪȝȘĲȚȞ) makes it clear that this was not a miscalculation; cf.
16* with n. For the setting of the action, see 9–10 n.
5–7 ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ is borrowed direct from the description of
the birth of Athena at Hes. fr. 343.19 (quoted and translated in the intro-
ductory n.). The adjective fits the impression of hostility that the goddess’
weapons make on the assembled audience of Olympians (first mentioned
explicitly in ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ੒ȡ૵ȞĲĮȢ / ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȣȢ); cf. 9 ੑȟઃȞ ਙțȠȞĲĮ, and
contrast 15 șİȠİȓțİȜĮ ĲİȪȤȘ with n. For the theme of the terror felt by the
gods at the appearance in their midst of another deity who seems initially
to be threatening them, cf. hAp. 2–13 with h. 27.11–12; and see introducto-
ry n.
314 Commentary
ȤȡȪıİĮ: For gold as the typical material for objects belonging to the
gods in early epic, see h. 5.16–17 n.
ʌĮȝĳĮȞȩȦȞĲĮ again implies an audience to be dazzled. As in 9–16,
the order in which the narrative is presented makes it clear that it is not so
much the sight of Athena herself emerging from Zeus’ head that inspires
wonder in the onlookers, but the arms she wields and what they suggest
about her tendencies and intentions.
ıȑȕĮȢ įૅ ਩Ȥİ ʌȐȞĲĮȢ ੒ȡ૵ȞĲĮȢ: a modified version of several tradition-
al phrases; see the second apparatus.
7–9 ਴ į੻ ʌȡȩıșİȞ țĲȜ: In 4–6, Zeus gives birth to Athena, who is a static
if stunning character. Here the same set of events is described, but Athena
now is emphatically in motion, while Zeus is merely a point of reference
that serves to locate her.
ǻȚઁȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ: The epithet emphasizes Zeus’ authority (cf. h. 5.22–3
n.) and thus implicitly that of his daughter; cf. 17.
੭ȡȠȣıİȞ: always ੕ȡȠȣıİȞ elsewhere in early epic (e.g. Il. 2.310;
3.325; 13.505; hDem. 17; hAp. 440), in which form it is used to describe
the birth of Athena at Stesich. PMG 233.2 (quoted in the introductory n.).
ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ țĮȡȒȞȠȣ is a reworking of țȡĮĲઁȢ ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ at Il.
1.530 (quoted more directly in 9, where see n.).
9–14 The description of the second set of reactions (for the first set, see 5–
7) to the appearance of Athena from Zeus’ head combines two standard
themes: (1) the trembling and shrieking of the natural world in response to
an overwhelming display of divine power (9 ȝȑȖĮȢ–12 țȣțȫȝİȞȠȢ; cf. Hes.
Th. 839–41; fr. 54a.7–8; h. 27.6–9 with n.; Pi. O. 7.38 (quoted and translat-
ed in the introductory n.); note also Il. 1.530 (on which the second half of 9
is modeled); hAp. 45–8); and (2) the still, silent awe the natural world dis-
plays in anticipation of a divine epiphany vel sim. (12 ਩ıȤİĲȠ–14 ȤȡȩȞȠȞ,
with 14–16 n.; cf. Dodds on E. Ba. 1084–5; Austin–Olson on Ar. Th. 43–
8). The awkwardness of the join is particularly apparent in 11–12, where
the ʌȩȞĲȠȢ heaves in billows, but the ਚȜȝȘ (another word for the sea) is
abruptly frozen in place.
9–10 ȝȑȖĮȢ įૅ ਥȜİȜȓȗİĲૅ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȢ is adapted from Il. 1.530 (the final
detail in the story of Zeus’ decision to grant Thetis’ request to honor her
son; cf. 7–9 n. on ਕʌૅ ਕșĮȞȐĲȠȚȠ țĮȡȒȞȠȣ) = h. 1.D6 West (Zeus affirms
his decision to ensure mortal honors for his son Dionysus) ȝȑȖĮȞ įૅ
ਥȜȑȜȚȗİȞ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ (‘and he made great Olympus shake’); cf. Il. 8.200
ਥȜȑȜȚȟİ į੻ ȝĮțȡઁȞ ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȞ / (‘and he made massive Olympus shake’).
For ȝȑȖĮȢ … ૓ȅȜȣȝʌȠȢ, cf. also Il. 8.443; Hes. Th. 842. The reference to
the place implicitly supplies a setting for the action described in 4 Ĳ੽Ȟ–9
ਙțȠȞĲĮ.
ਫ਼ʌઁ ȕȡȓȝȘȢ ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ: The MSS have ਫ਼ʌૅ ੑȕȡȓȝȘȢ vel sim. But
(1) Athena herself does nothing to Olympus, which—like the other entities
referred to in the lines that follow—reacts independently to the threatening
sight of her spear (7–9), and (2) the iota in ੕ȕȡȚȝȠȢ is elsewhere always
short; and Ilgen (comparing h. 27.8 įİȚȞઁȞ ਫ਼ʌઁ țȜĮȖȖોȢ*) redivided the
words. Cf. A.R. 4.1677 / ȂȘįİȓȘȢ ȕȡȓȝȘȚ ʌȠȜȣĳĮȡȝȐțȠȣ (‘the power of
drug-rich Medea’), where ȕȡȓȝȘ (attested elsewhere only in Hesychius and
(in the plural) in an Orphic fragment) appears in the same sedes and may
represent a learned allusion to this verse. There is in any case an echo of
the early epic line-end formula ȖȜĮȣțȫʌȚįȠȢ ੑȕȡȚȝȠʌȐĲȡȘȢ (‘of the gleam-
ing-eyed daughter of a powerful father’; Od. 3.135; 24.540; Hes. Th. 587).
10–11 ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ ȖĮ૙Į / ıȝİȡįĮȜȑȠȞ ੁȐȤȘıİȞ is adapted from Hes. Th. 839–
40 ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ ȖĮ૙Į / ıȝİȡįĮȜȑȠȞ țȠȞȐȕȘıİ (‘the earth rang all about’; the
reaction when Zeus finally unleashes his full power against the Titans; cf.
fr. 54a.7–8 [ਕȝĳ੿ į੻ Ȗ]Įҕ૙Į / țҕ[Ț]ȞȘșҕ[Ș] (‘the earth moved all about’; the
reaction when Zeus produces angry thunder and lightning); Thgn. 9
ਥȖȑȜĮııİ į੻ ȖĮ૙Į ʌİȜȫȡȘ (‘the enormous earth laughed’; a reaction to
Apollo’s birth, with a reference to the joy experienced by the sea in the
next verse)), with an emotionally colored verb substituted for Hesiod’s
more neutral term. The line-initial phrase ıȝİȡįĮȜȑĮ ੁȐȤȦȞ is common in
Homer (Il. 5.302; 16.785; 19.41; 20.285, 382, 443; Od. 22.81), with the
hiatus mitigated by the verb’s original digamma. ıȝİȡįĮȜȑĮ ੁȐȤȘıİȞ was
thus possible, but the poet opted to retain the Hesiodic neuter singular.
12–14 țȪȝĮıȚ ʌȠȡĳȣȡȑȠȚıȚ: For ‘purple waves’ (a sign of violently dis-
turbed water), cf. Il. 1.481–2; 21.326; Od. 2.427–8; 11.243; 13.84–5.
ਥȟĮʌȓȞȘȢ … / … įȘȡઁȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ: The first action is described in
terms of the pace at which it was accomplished (‘rapidly’), the second by
reference to the duration of the state thus achieved (‘for a long time’). But
the qualifiers apply equally to both verbs (Helios brought his horses to an
abrupt halt, and the sea remained motionless for as long as the sun-god’s
chariot did); and the difference in presentation merely reflects the order in
which the two events are narrated, with attention in the first case to the
beginning of the action, in the second case to its end (note İੁıȩĲİ). So too
in Pi. O. 7.39–43, the description of Athena’s birth and the terror in the
natural world that it occasions (7.35–8, quoted and translated in the intro-
ductory n.; the detail is first attested here) is followed by an account of how
Helios (similarly referred to as ૽ȊʌİȡȚȠȞȓįĮȢ, ‘son of Hyperion’) responds
by ordering his children to erect an altar for the goddess ‘of the thundering
spear’ (ਥȖȤİȚȕȡȩȝȦȚ; cf. 9 ıİȓıĮıૅ ੑȟઃȞ ਙțȠȞĲĮ).
૽ȊʌİȡȓȠȞȠȢ ਕȖȜĮઁȢ ȣੂȩȢ: i.e. Helios, the sun-god; cf. h. 31.4–7, and
see Richardson on hDem. 26; Gantz (1993) 30–1. The patronymic nicely
316 Commentary
captures Helios’ position at this point in the narrative, as he and his horses
‘pass over’ the incredible scene going on below.
੆ʌʌȠȣȢ ੩țȪʌȠįĮȢ: For the Sun’s horses (sc. and chariot; never men-
tioned by Homer), cf. hDem. 63 with Richardson ad loc.; hHerm. 68–9; h.
31.8–9, 14–15; Titan. fr. 7, p. 14 Bernabé. The adjective (also used of a
divine team at Il. 5.732, from which the phrase is borrowed) brings out the
significance of ıĲોıİȞ … / … įȘȡઁȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ: although the horses can (and
will again later) run rapidly through the sky, for the moment their master
will not let them do so.
14–16 Within the birth-narrative—although not within the Hymn as a
whole (note esp. 3 ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȞ ĮੁįȠȓȘȞ)—țȠȪȡȘ is proleptic: only after
Athena removes her armor in 15 is it apparent to the various internal audi-
ences (5–7 and 9–14 with nn.) that she is not a fearsome male warrior, but
a young woman. Cf. below on 16 ȆĮȜȜ੹Ȣ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘ.
șİȠİȓțİȜĮ ĲİȪȤȘ: cf. 5 ʌȠȜİȝȒȚĮ ĲİȪȤİૅ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ with n. Here the ad-
jective is appropriate to the moment of epiphany: as the goddess finally
(note 14 įȘȡઁȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ) reveals herself, by removing her armor from her
‘immortal shoulders’, it is described as ‘appropriate for a god’. Only at this
point is her full personal identity disclosed: she is ȆĮȜȜ੹Ȣ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘ, to
whom the Hymn as a whole is dedicated (1 ȆĮȜȜȐįૅ ਝșȘȞĮȓȘȞ*).
șİȠİȓțİȜȠȢ is elsewhere consistently ‘god-like’ (e.g. Il. 1.131; Od. 4.276;
hDem. 159; h. 5.279).
ȖȒșȘıİ į੻ ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ: For divine parents rejoicing in their chil-
dren, cf. hAp. 12–13, 125–6, 204–6; h. 27.19–20 n. The reference to
ȝȘĲȓİĲĮ ǽİȪȢ echoes 4*, bringing the narrative portion of the Hymn full-
circle before the closing invocation in 17–18.
17–18 A standard closing; cf. hAp. 545–6; hHerm. 579–80 (with ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿
ȁȘĲȠ૨Ȣ ȣੂȑ and ǻȚઁȢ țĮ੿ ȂĮȚȐįȠȢ ȣੂȑ, respectively, in place of ǻȚઁȢ ĲȑțȠȢ
ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ here); and the other examples of lines identical to 18 in the first
apparatus, with h. 5.292–3 n. (on ȤĮ૙ȡİ and the zeugma ‘you’ balanced by
‘another song’).
ǻȚઁȢ ĲȑțȠȢ ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ: a reworking of the common Homeric phrase
ĮੁȖȚȩȤȠȚȠ ǻȚઁȢ ĲȑțȠȢ (e.g. Il. 1.202; 2.157; 5.115, 714; 8.352, 427; Od.
4.762 = 6.324).
Hymn 29: To Hestia
Despite the relative clause in 1–4, esp. 2, which suggests that the subject
will be the honor shown Hestia in both divine and mortal houses (cf. h.
5.31–2), the Hymn as a whole focuses relentlessly on the human world;
contrast h. 24.1–2 (also in honor of Hestia, but with attention to her role in
Apollo’s temple at Delphi). Nor does the Hymn take up the opportunity
presented by 3 to discuss the divine history of the award of this honor,
which is instead configured as a direct and simple consequence of birth-
order (see 3–4 nn.) and is, for all practical purposes, bestowed by human
beings rather than via some arrangement among the gods themselves (4–6).
The Hymn repeatedly evokes visions of grand private houses (1, 9) in
which rich banquets and drinking parties are held (5–6, 9–12 with nn.), and
the obvious conclusion is that it was composed for performance in such a
setting, like h. 24 and the songs of Phemius in Odyssey 1 and Demodocus
in Odyssey 8 (thus Paz de Hoz (1998) 63).
4 (where see n.) suggests that the poet was familiar with the embedded
Hestia-hymn at h. 5.21–32.
A ‘descriptive’ or ‘attributive’ hymn.
1 Like h. 8 (to Ares; a late intruder in the collection); 21 (to Apollo); and
24 (also in honor of Hestia), h. 29 makes no initial reference to the activity
of the Muse or the singer (cf. h. 5.1 n.), but begins with a ‘Du-Stil’ voca-
tive (cf. Race (1992) 28, who identifies this as a typical feature of ‘cultic’
as opposed to ‘rhapsodic’ hymns), in this case followed immediately by a
typical hymnic relative clause (cf. h. 5.2 n.).
ਥȞ įȫȝĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ: The epithet, like țĮȜȐ in 9, adds a touch of
majesty that redounds above all to the glory of the mortal owner of the
house in which the song is being performed. Cf. 5–6 n. on İੁȜĮʌȓȞĮȚ.
2 At Il. 5.442 (the source of the line), the point is that gods are profoundly
different from human beings, whereas here the idea is that Hestia has iden-
tical honors in the mortal and immortal spheres.
3 ਪįȡȘȞ ਕȓįȚȠȞ is in implicit contrast to ȤĮȝĮ੿ ਥȡȤȠȝȑȞȦȞ Ĳૅ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ in
2: human beings are—literally—transitory creatures, whereas Hestia’s
position is forever. Cf. 10–11 n. on ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ.
ʌȡİıȕȘȓįĮ ĲȚȝȒȞ: in apposition to ਪįȡȘȞ ਕȓįȚȠȞ. The adjective (cog-
nate with ʌȡȑıȕȣȢ) is a hapax, and is most easily understood as a reference
to Hestia’s position as the eldest child of Cronus and Rhea, as at h. 5.22
(where see n.); cf. 4 n. on țĮȜઁȞ … ȖȑȡĮȢ (for the Hymn-poet’s familiarity
318 Commentary
with h. 5), 5 ʌȡȫĲȘȚ ʌȣȝȐĲȘȚ Ĳİ with n.; and the otherwise gratuitous 13
ȀȡȩȞȠȣ șȪȖĮĲİȡ. ਩ȜĮȤİȢ makes it clear that Hestia’s position of honor has
a history; for the use of the verb, cf. Il. 4.49 = 24.70; 15.190–2; Hes. Th.
422, 424; hHerm. 428. But nothing more is said of it, unlike at h. 5.24–32,
where Zeus and his actions are at the center of the narrative; cf. 4 n.
4 țĮȜઁȞ ਩ȤȠȣıĮ ȖȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ĲȚȝȒȞ: Rather than taking up the history of
Hestia’s right to a seat in every divine and human household, as described
in the relative clause in 1 ਴ ʌȐȞĲȦȞ–3 (cf. 3 n.), the Hymn offers an evalua-
tion of that right (further unpacked in the ȖȐȡ-clause that follows, where
the focus is on cult, and thus on the human rather than the divine world).
țĮȜઁȞ … ȖȑȡĮȢ is an unusual expression, and suggests a direct reference to
h. 5.29 (where see n.). The adjective (to be taken with both nouns) has a
persuasive function, describing how Hestia ought to evaluate the honor she
is shown, sc. if she is to respond with the aid indirectly requested in 10–11.
Cf. 5–6 n. on ȝİȜȚȘįȑĮ ȠੇȞȠȞ.
5–6 İੁȜĮʌȓȞĮȚ is common in Homer (e.g. Il. 10.217; Od. 1.226), but is
subsequently treated as high-style vocabulary (hence its absence from 5th-
century prose and comedy, and its presence in tragedy only in lyric). The
word thus inflates the grandeur of the meals in question, as well as the
significance of the libations Hestia is poured at them (6).
੆Ȟૅ Ƞ੝ țĲȜ: an exceedingly awkward way of expressing something that
might have been said less clumsily via a passive construction (‘where hon-
ey-sweet wine is not poured …’).
ʌȡȫĲȘȚ ʌȣȝȐĲȘȚ Ĳİ: i.e. both as a general mark of honor and in recog-
nition of the fact that she was not just Cronus’ eldest child but his youngest
as well; cf. 3 n.; h. 5.22–3 with n. (on ‘first and last’ as a position of hon-
or); Cornutus c. 28, p. 53.12–16 Lang ȝȣșİȪİĲĮȚ į੻ ʌȡȫĲȘ țĮ੿ ਥıȤȐĲȘ
ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ Ĳ૵Ț İੁȢ ĲĮȪĲȘȞ ਕȞĮȜȪİıșĮȚ Ĳ੹ ਕʌૅ Į੝ĲોȢ ȖȚȞȩȝİȞĮ țĮ੿ ਥȟ
Į੝ĲોȢ ıȣȞȓıĲĮıșĮȚ, țĮșઁ țਕȞ ĲĮ૙Ȣ șȣıȓĮȚȢ Ƞੂ ૠǼȜȜȘȞİȢ ਕʌઁ ʌȡȫĲȘȢ
Ĳİ Į੝ĲોȢ ਵȡȤȠȞĲȠ țĮ੿ İੁȢ ਥıȤȐĲȘȞ Į੝Ĳ੽Ȟ țĮĲȑʌĮȣȠȞ (‘She is referred
to as first and last because of the fact that what originated from her is dis-
solved into her and composed from her, which is why the Greeks in their
sacrifices began with her first, and concluded with her last’). For Hestia
honored first in sacrifices and the like, see Pi. N. 11.6–7 ʌȠȜȜ੹ ȝ੻Ȟ
ȜȠȚȕĮ૙ıȚȞ ਕȖĮȗȩȝİȞȠȚ ʌȡȫĲĮȞ șİ૵Ȟ, / ʌȠȜȜ੹ į੻ țȞȓıĮȚ (‘often wor-
shipping you first of the gods with libations, and often with the smell of
burnt fat’); S. fr. 726 ੯ ʌȡ૵ȚȡĮ ȜȠȚȕોȢ ૽ǼıĲȓĮ, țȜȪİȚȢ ĲȐįİ; (‘Hestia,
foremost in libations—do you hear this?’); E. Phaethon 249–50 with Dig-
gle ad loc.; Pl. Crat. 401d Ĳઁ Ȗ੹ȡ ʌȡઁ ʌȐȞĲȦȞ șİ૵Ȟ ĲોȚ ૽ǼıĲȓĮȚ
ʌȡȫĲȘȚ ʌȡȠșȪİȚȞ İੁțȩȢ (‘for the custom is to make an initial sacrifice to
Hestia before any other gods’); Paus. v.14.4 (Hestia awarded the first sacri-
fice at Olympia, with Zeus second); and cf. Ar. Av. 864 (Hestia named first
in a prayer). There appears to be no other specific early evidence for Hestia
honored last as well; but at Od. 7.137–8 Odysseus catches the Phaeacians
pouring a libation to Hermes (referred to as ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ, as in 7), ‘to
whom they used to pour libation last, when they were thinking of going to
bed’, hence perhaps Hestia’s close association with him in 7–11.
ȝİȜȚȘįȑĮ ȠੇȞȠȞ: The adjective (conventional in early epic) is again
persuasive: if Hestia thinks of the wine poured out in her honor as particu-
larly sweet, she will be more likely to show generosity to mortals in return.
Cf. 4 n. on țĮȜઁȞ … ȖȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ĲȚȝȒȞ.
7–8 Hermes is addressed with five traditional epithets borrowed and
adapted from elsewhere. Cf. h. 18.1–4, and contrast the treatment of Hestia
exclusively with relative clauses and the like at 1–6 and in h. 25. For Her-
mes as the god to whom the evening’s final libation is poured in Od. 7, see
5–6 n. on 5 ʌȡȫĲȘȚ ʌȣȝȐĲȘȚ Ĳİ.
ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲĮ: Elsewhere in early epic, the title is consistently line-
final, as at h. 5.117 ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲȘȢ / (where see n. and the se-
cond apparatus). Cf. below on į૵ĲȠȡ ਥȐȦȞ.
ਙȖȖİȜİ Ĳ૵Ȟ ȝĮțȐȡȦȞ represents a clumsy attempt to adapt the phrase
ਙȖȖİȜȠȢ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ (* at hHerm. 3 = h. 18.3) to the vocative case, the hiatus
in ਙȖȖİȜİ ਕșĮȞȐĲȦȞ having seemingly been judged impossible; but the
definitive article is out of place in traditional epic diction.
ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚ, į૵ĲȠȡ ਥȐȦȞ: ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚ, ਝȡȖİȚĳȩȞĲĮ (cf. above) is ex-
pected, and whatever other metrical and compositional considerations led
to the change, the effect is to put Hermes’ most immediately relevant char-
acteristic—his willingness and ability to offer mortals gifts—directly be-
fore the request for his favor in 10. Cf. h. 5.117 n. on the narrative logic of
the string of epithets (sent by the gods, and given the staff that guarantees
the effectiveness of his actions, Hermes brings good things to human be-
ings).
10–11 For the re-ordering of the text, see 9–12 n. below.
੆ȜĮȠȢ ੭Ȟ: sc. in reaction to the praise implicit in the string of epithets
in 7–8. For a hymn rendering a god ੆ȜĮȠȢ toward the singer, cf. h. 19.48 =
21.5 ੆ȜĮȝĮȚ įȑ ıૅ ਕȠȚįોȚ (‘I conciliate you with my song’).
ਥʌȐȡȘȖİ: The compound is always used in early epic of a god assisting
a mortal (Il. 23.783; 24.39; Od. 13.391), as the simplex generally is as well
(see LfgrE s. ਕȡȒȖȦ B I).
ĮੁįȠȓȘȚ Ĳİ ĳȓȜȘȚ Ĳİ / ૽ǿıĲȓȘȚ: The adjectives (together also at Il.
10.114; 14.210; 18.386 = 425; Od. 5.88; 11.360; 19.191, 254; cf. Od. 8.21–
2; 14.505) represent an extremely positive evaluation of another person,
and in particular of the nature of one’s obligations to him or her, which
320 Commentary
spring from awe or respect (cf. h. 5.21 n.), on the one hand, and personal
warmth and sympathy, on the other. The combination is often applied to
especially honored or welcome guests (Il. 18.386 = 425; Od. 5.88; 8.21–2;
11.360; 14.505; 19.191, 254). Although only Hestia is explicitly called
ĮੁįȠȓȘ Ĳİ ĳȓȜȘ Ĳİ, therefore, the adjectives effectively apply to her close
divine associate as well.
ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ: The adjective emphasizes the fact that earth is
not where one normally expects gods to dwell (9). Cf. 3 n. on ਪįȡȘȞ ਕȓįȚȠȞ.
9–12 9 dropped out of the text at some point, and was reinserted in the
wrong location, presumably by a copyist who found it at the top of the
page or in a margin, where a corrector had added it. The original error must
be connected with the occurrence of -ȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ in identical positions in 9
and 12, which caused the scribe’s eye to jump from one line to the next.
įȫȝĮĲĮ țĮȜȐ: cf. 1 n. on ਥȞ įȫȝĮıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ.
ĳȓȜĮ ĳȡİı੿Ȟ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȚıȚȞ / İੁįȩĲİȢ: making it more likely that they
will in fact join forces, as requested in 10–11, to become ‘fine supports’
(sc. of the house and perhaps even the city in which it is located). But the
image of easy congeniality also models how human beings ought to behave
at aristocratic parties like those imagined in 5–6 (and cf. below). The
phrase is modeled on Od. 3.277 ĳȓȜĮ İੁįȩĲİȢ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȚıȚȞ / (‘well-disposed
to one another’; Nestor describes his relationship to his old friend and war-
companion Agamemnon).
ਪȡȝĮĲĮ: For the word used metaphorically, cf. ਪȡȝĮ ʌȩȜȘȠȢ (‘bulwark
of the city’) at Il. 16.549 (of Sarpedon); Od. 23.121 (of the dead suitors).
Thus West (1996) 150; Ȍ’s ਩ȡȖȝĮĲĮ/ਪȡȖȝĮĲĮ (for which, see h. 27.20 n.)
must represent a deliberate correction designed to provide an object for
ਥʌȚȤșȠȞȓȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ / İੁįȩĲİȢ after 9 fell out of the text.
ȞȩȦȚ șૅ … țĮ੿ ਸ਼ȕȘȚ: i.e. intelligence and physical beauty, two of the
qualities most prized in fellow symposiasts (cf. above and 5–6 n.), perhaps
implicitly divided here into two groups, the old (and nominally wise) and
the young (and properly attractive).
13 ȤĮ૙ȡİ: cf. h. 5.292* with n.
ȀȡȩȞȠȣ șȪȖĮĲİȡ: cf. 3 n. on ʌȡİıȕȘȓįĮ ĲȚȝȒȞ.
ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚȢ ૽ǼȡȝોȢ: cf. 8 ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚ with n., as well as the Homer-
ic ૽ǼȡȝİȓĮ(Ȣ) ȤȡȣıȩȡȡĮʌȚ(Ȣ) (Od. 5.87; 10.277).
14 A standard final line for Hymns honoring two or more deities (see the
first apparatus); cf. h. 6.21 (a closely related formula for a Hymn to a single
god) with n.
Bibliography
Allen, T. W., W. R. Halliday, and E. E Sikes (eds.). 1963. The Homeric Hymns2. Ox-
ford.
Anderson, J. K. 1985. Hunting in the Ancient World. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Lon-
don.
Arend, W. 1933. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Berlin.
Athanassakis, A. 1976. ‘The Etymology and Meaning of ੒ȝȠȓȚȠȢ.’ RhM 119: 4–7.
Bérard, J. 1957. La colonisation grecque de l’Italie méridionale et de la Sicile dan
l’antiquité: l’histoire et la légende2. Paris.
Bergren, A. L. T. 1989. ‘The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Tradition and Rhetoric,
Praise and Blame.’ ClAnt 8: 1–41.
Blümner, H. 1879. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Grie-
chen und Römern2. 4 vols. Leipzig.
Boedeker, D. D. 1974. Aphrodite’s Entry into Greek Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 32.
Leiden.
Bossi, F. 1978. ‘[Hom.] Hymn. Ven.’ MCr 13–14: 23–4.
Brown, A. S. 1997. ‘Aphrodite and the Pandora Complex.’ CQ NS 47: 26–47.
Buchholz, H.-G., G. Jöhrens, and I. Maull. 1973. Jagd und Fischfang. Archaeologia
Homerica II.J. Göttingen.
Bulloch, A. W. (ed.). 1985. Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn. Cambridge and New York.
Buxton, R. 1992. ‘Imaginary Greek Mountains.’ JHS 112: 1–15.
Calame, C. 2001. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece2. Lanham, MD.
Calhoun, G. M. 1935. ‘The Art of Formula in Homer—ǼȆǼǹ ȆȉǼȇȅǼȃȉǹ.’ CP 30:
215–27.
Càssola, F. (ed.). 1975. Inni omerici. Scrittori greci et latini 3. Milan.
Chantraine, P. 1935. ‘Grec ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ (Hymne homérique à Aphrodite, 197).’ BSL 36:
131–2.
——. 1958. Grammaire Homérique. Paris.
Clay, J. S. 1981–82. ‘Ageless and Immortal Forever.’ CJ 77: 112–17.
——. 1989. The Politics of Olympus: Form and meaning in the major Homeric Hymns.
Oxford and New York.
Couch, Ǿ. ȃ. 1937. ‘ǹ Prelude to Speech in Homer.’ TAPA 68: 129–40.
Daremberg, C. V., and E. Saglio. 1875–1919. Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et
Romaines. Paris.
de Jong, I. J. F. 1989. ‘The Biter Bit: A Narratological Analysis of H. Aphr. 45–291.’
WS 102: 13–26.
Denniston, J. D. 1954. The Greek Particles2. Revised by K. J. Dover. Oxford.
Dornseiff, F. 1931. ‘Der homerische Aphroditehymnos.’ ARW 29: 203–4.
322 Bibliography
Due, O. S. 1965. ‘The Meaning of the Homeric Formula ȤȡȣıȘȜȐțĮĲȠȢ țİȜĮįİȚȞȒ.’

C&M 26: 1–9.
Erskine, A. 2001. Troy between Greece and Rome: Local Tradition and Imperial Pow-
er. Oxford and New York.
Fantuzzi, M., and A. Sens. 2006. ‘The Hexameter of Inscribed Hellenistic Epigram.’ In
A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker (eds.), Beyond the Canon, pp. 105–22.
Leuven.
Faulkner, A. 2006. ‘Aphrodite’s Aorists: Attributive Sections in the Homeric Hymns.’
Glotta 81: 60–79.
—— (ed.). 2008. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Introduction, Text, and Commen-
tary. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford and New York.
Fischer-Hansen, T., and B. Poulsen (eds). 2009. From Artemis to Diana: The Goddess
of Man and Beast. Danish Studies in Classical Archaeology, Acta Hyperborea 12.
Copenhagen.
Flores, E. 1979. ‘La composizione dell’ inno a Venere di Lucrezio e gli inni omerici ad
Aphrodite.’ Vichiana 8: 237–51.
Furley, W. D. and J. M. Bremer (eds.). 2001. Greek Hymns. Studien und Texte zu
Antike und Christentum 9–10. Tübingen.
Galinsky, G. K. 1969. Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton.
Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth. Baltimore and London.
García, J. F. 2002. ‘Symbolic Action in the Homeric Hymns: The Theme of Recogni-
tion.’ ClAnt 21: 5–39.
Giacomelli, A. 1980. ‘Aphrodite and After.’ Phoenix 34: 1–19.
Hedreen, G. 1992. Silens in Attic black-figure Vase-painting. Ann Arbor.
——. 1994. ‘Silens, Nymphs, and Maenads.’ JHS 114: 47–69.
Hinge, G. 2006. Die Sprache Alkmans: Textgeschichte Und Sprachgeschichte. Serta
Graeca 24. Wiesbaden.
Hoekstra, A. 1969. The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition: Studies in the
Homeric Hymns. Amsterdam and London.
——. 1969. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the Develop-
ment of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akade-
mie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks LXXI.1. Amsterdam.
Horsfall, N. 1979a. ‘Some Problems in the Aeneas Legend.’ CQ NS 29: 372–90.
——. 1979b. ‘Stesichorus at Bovillae?’ JHS 99 (1979b) 26–48.
Hurst, A. ‘L’Huile d’Aphrodite.’ Ziva Antika 26: 23–5.
Janko, R. 1981. ‘Structure of the Homeric Hymns—A Study in a Genre.’ Hermes 109:
9–24.
——. 1981a. ‘Equivalent Formulae in the Greek Epos.’ Mnemosyne IV.34: 251–64.
——. 1982. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns. Cambridge.
Jeanmaire, H. 1933. Couroi et Courètes. Lille. Reprint New York 1975.
Jones, B. 2010. ‘Relative Chronology within (an) Oral Tradition.’ CJ 105: 289–319.
Jouan, F. 1956. ‘Thétis, Hestia et Athéna.’ REG 69: 290–302.
Kakridis, J. Th. 1930. ‘Tithonos.’ WS 48: 25–38.
Kamerbeek, J. C. 1967. ‘Remarques sur l’Hymne a Aphrodite.’ Mnemosyne IV.20:
385–95.
Bibliography 323
Kauer, S. 1959. Die Geburt der Athena im altgriechischen Epos. Würzburg.

Keaney, J. J. 1981. ‘Hymn. Ven. 140 and the Use of ਝȆȅǿȃǹ.’ AJP 102: 261–4.
Keller, O. 1909. Die antike Tierwelt. 2 vols. Leipzig.
Knox, Ȃ. ȅ. 1971. ‘Huts and Farm Buildings in Homer.’ CQ NS 21: 27–31.
Kretschmer, P. 1894. Griechischen Vaseninschriften. Guetersloh. Reprint Chicago
1980.
Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford and New York.
Lenz, L. H. 1975. Der homerische Aphroditehymnus und die Aristie des Aineias in der
Iliad. Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe klassische Philologie Heft 19. Bonn.
Lorimer, H. L. 1950. Homer and the Monuments. London.
Maas, M. and J. M. Snyder. 1989. Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece. New Haven
and London.
Magnelli, E. 2002. Studi su Euforione. Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca, Quaderni 4.
Rome.
Matthiae, A. 1800. Animadversiones in Hymnos Homericos. Leipzig.
Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. 1981. Studies in Greek Colour Terminology, vol. ii. Mnemosyne
Supplement 67. Leiden 1981.
Morgan, G. 1978. ‘Aphrodite Cytherea.’ TAPA 108: 115–20.
Olson, S. D. 1995. Blood and Iron: Stories & Storytelling in Homer’s Odyssey. Mne-
mosyne Supplement 148. Leiden, New York, and Cologne.
——. 2007. Broken Laughter. Oxford
——. 2011. ‘Immortal Encounters: Aeneid 1 and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’
Vergilius 57: 55–61.
—— and A. Sens (eds.). 2000. Archestratos of Gela. Oxford.
Parker, Robert. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford.
Parry, A. (ed.). 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse: the Collected Papers of Milman
Parry. Oxford.
Parry, H. 1986. ‘The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Erotic ANANKE.’ Phoenix 40:
253–64.
Parry, M. 1932. ‘Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making II: The Homeric
Language as the Language of an Oral Poetry.’ HSCP 43: 1–50.
Paz de Hoz, M. 1998. ‘Los Himnos Homéricos Cortos y las Plegarias Cultuales.’
Emerita 66: 49–66.
Pelliccia, H. N. 1985. The Structure of Archaic Greek Hymns. Diss. Yale.
——. 1990. ‘Aeschylean ਕȝȑȖĮȡĲȠȢ and Virgilian inamabilis.’ ZPE 84: 187–94.
——. 1993. ‘Aeschylus, Eumenides, 64–88 and the Ex Cathedra Language of Apollo.’
HSCP 95: 65–105.
——. 1995. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107. Göttin-
gen.
Pellizer, E. 1978. ‘Tecnica compositive e struttura genealogica nell’Inno omerico ad
Afrodite.’ QUCC 27: 115–44.
Perret, J. 1942. Les origines de la légende Troyenne de Rome (281–31). Paris.
Picard, C. 1922. Éphèse et Claros: Recherches sur les Sanctuaires et les Cultes de
l’Ionie du Nord. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, fasc.
123. Paris.
324 Bibliography
Podbielski, H. 1971. La Structure de L’Hymne Homérique à Aphrodite à la Lumière de

la Tradition Littéraire. Warsaw.
Porter, H. N. 1949. ‘Repetition in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’ AJP 70: 249–72.
Preziosi, P. G. 1967. ‘The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: An Oral Analysis.’ HSCP 71:
171–204.
Proctor, R. 1900. The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century. Oxford.
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.
Radin, A. 1988. ‘Sunrise, Sunset: ਷ȝȠȢ in Homeric Epic.’ AJP 109: 293–307.
Reinhardt, K. 1956. ‘Zum homerischen Aphroditehymnus.’ In Festschrift Bruno Snell,
pp. 1–14. Munich.
Renehan, R. 1972. ‘ǻǿǹǿȆǼȉǾȈ in Alcman.’ RhM 115: 93–6.
——. 1975. Greek Lexicographical Notes. Hypomnemata Heft 45. Göttingen.
Richardson, N. J. (ed.). 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford.
—— (ed.). 2010. Three Homeric hymns: To Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite. Cam-
bridge.
Rudhardt, J. 1991. ‘L’hymne homérique à Aphrodite: Essai d’interprétation.’ MH 48:
16–18.
Scott, J. A. 1907. ‘Prohibitives with ʌȡȩȢ and the Genitive.’ CP 2: 324–30.
Shackle, R. J. 1915. ‘Some Emendations of the Homeric Hymns.’ CR 29: 161–5.
Slatkin, L. 1991. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad. Berke-
ley, Los Angeles, and Oxford.
Smith, P. M. 1979. ‘Notes on the Text of the Fifth Homeric Hymn.’ HSCP 83: 29–50.
——. 1981a. Nursling of Mortality: A Study of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.
Studien zur klassischen Philologie 3. Frankfurt am Main.
——. 1981b. ‘Aineiadai as Patrons of Iliad XX and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’
HSCP 85: 17–58.
Solmsen, F. 1960. ‘Zur Theologie im grossen Aphrodite-Hymnus.’ Hermes 88: 1–13.
Sowa, C. A. 1984. Traditional Themes and the Homeric Hymns. Chicago.
Szemerényi, O. 1974. ‘The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux.’ JHS 94:
144–57.
Tod, M. N. 1948. Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford.
Treu, M. 1958. ‘Homerische Flüsse fallen nicht von Himmel.’ Glotta 37: 260–75.
Tsomis, G. 2004. ‘ȝȑȞȠȢ in der frühgriechischen Dichtung und ਕȝİȞȘȞȩȢ im homeri-
schen Aphrodite-Hymnos (5, 188).’ WS 117: 15–29.
Turkeltaub, D. 2003. ‘The Three Virgin Goddesses in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’
Lexis 21: 101–16.
van der Ben, N. 1986. ‘Hymn to Aphrodite 36–291: Notes on the Pars Epica of the
Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’ Mnemosyne IV.39: 1–41.
van Eck, J. 1978. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Introduction, Commentary and
Appendices. Diss. Utrecht.
Walcot, P. 1991. ‘The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: A Literary Appraisal.’ G&R NS
38: 137–55.
Wegner, M. 1968. Musik und Tanz. Archaeologia Homerica III.U. Göttingen.
West, M. L. 1966. ‘ਪȦȢ oder ਸȠȢ.’ Glotta 44: 135–9.
Bibliography 325
—— (ed.). 1966a. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford.

——. 1982. Greek Metre. Oxford.
——. 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford.
——. 1996. ‘Conjectures on 46 Greek Poets.’ Philologus 110: 147–68.
—— (ed.). 1998. Homerus Ilias. 2 vols. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
—— (ed. and trans.). 2003. Homeric Hymns. Homeric Apocrypha. Lives of Homer.
Loeb Classical Library 496. Cambridge, MA.
——. 2005. ‘The New Sappho.’ ZPE 151: 1–9.
Wood, Robert. 1769. An Essay on the Original Genius of Homer. London. Reprint New
York 1971.
Index
Subjects of individual Hymns are by and large not indexed under those Hymns.
Anchises is similarly excluded for the hAphr.
Achilleus 195, 196, 276 cows, cowherds and pas- gods, smell of 170
Aeneas 1–9, 29, 165, 194, turage 166–7, 175 gold, associated with gods
233, 260–1, 269–71, crasis 167 130, 141, 173, 189,
272, 274, 276 Cronus 147, 148, 150–1, 200, 244, 280, 282;
Aeneidae 5, 7–9 159, 297, 317, 318 jewelry 173–4, 280,
Anchises 1–3, 5, 7, 164–5 cult statues, anointed with 282
aorist, hymnic 131, 146 perfumed oil 300; ritu- Graces 169, 170, 172,
Aphrodite, beauty of 224– al washing of 287 173, 190, 263, 277,
5; birth of 131, 181–2, Cyclops 272, 275 282, 306–7
279; ‘gifts of’ 292; Cyprus 130–1, 170, 174,
smiles of 141; univer- 277, 279, 280, 281, hair, worn long 249–50
sal power of 131–2 286, 291, 292 hearth as site of sacrifice
Apollo 148–9, 215–6, Cythera 134, 286, 291, 153
288, 292, 299, 303, 292 Hector 2, 3, 8, 196, 276
304, 304, 306, 307, Helios/Sun 315–6
307–8, 309 Dardania and Dardanus 2 Hephaestus 311, 312
Apollonius Rhodius 24 Dawn 235, 243–53, 271 Hera 157, 158, 159–60,
Artemis, 189, 200; as deer 178 169–70, 259
huntress 141–3, 303; Delos 303, 308–9 Hermes 200, 213–4, 241–
bow as attribute of Delphi 299, 300, 303, 2, 264, 276, 299, 306–
141–2, 304 307, 309 7, 308–9, 319
Ascanius 7 distaff 141 Hero and Leander 27
Athena 137–8, 139; Athe- dowry 210–1 Hesiod 1, 21, 147, 182,
na Areia 295 279–80, 281, 313, 315
ecology 203 Hestia 33, 145–7, 147–9,
bears 177 149–50, 150–1, 151–2,
Eros 279
beds and bedding 218, 152, 153–4
219–20 Eumaeus 179, 181, 196–7
Himeros/Desire 131, 279
eyes, averted in terror
227; turned downward horses, heroic 240–1; of
Callimachus 24–5 as gesture of modesty Helios 316; watering
carts 138–9 217 of 288
choruses of young women hunting 142–3
200–1, 307 Ganymede 2, 226, 235–
Claros 287, 288 43, 263 Ilus and Ilium 2
clothing and treatment of gesture 213, 216–7, 225– indications of time via
220–1, 223–4 6, 226–7, 246 reference to events in
Colophon 287 ‘glottochronometrics’ 10– larger world 221–2
15
328 Index
jewelry 173–4, 219–20, Paphos 169, 172, 281 springs 166, 175
280, 282–4, Paris 181 Styx, oaths by 150
languages, diversity of in perfumed oil at banquets
ancient Mediterranean 300 Themis 189–90
196–7 Philodemus 27 Tithonus 32, 226, 235,
Laomedon 2 Poseidon 148 243–53, 260, 271
laughter 163 prayer, language of 188, trees 144
‘leaving light’ as image of 191–2, 193–4 Tros 2, 238–43
birth 269 pregnancy, how described
Leto 303, 307, 308, 309 260–1 Vergil 50
lions 177 Priam 2, 196–7, 215, 276
lyre 143, 181 Proclus 26 wall-pegs used to hang
proems, epic 129–30, 131 objects 308
Meles River 287 wedding, feast at 211;
Metis 311, 312 Quintus Smyrnaeus 27 proper cultural script
Moschus 25–6 for 207, 215
mothers and fathers, rape-stories, divine 199– wildcats 178
differing image of 200, 205–6, 236, 239 ‘wilderness’, ideology of
195–6 Rhea 159, 297, 317 202
‘mountain-copper’ 283 wine-mixing 236–7
mountains 142, 268, 304, sacred groves 144, 265–9 wolves 177
305 Salamis 281, 291, 292 women’s work 139–40
Musaeus 26–7 Seasons 263, 282, 284, woodcutting, 267–8
Muse and Muses 129, 285, 306–7
263–4, 265, 306–7, ‘seeing light’ as image of Zeus 146–7, 148, 150,
307–8 birth 261 151, 154–6, 157–8,
sex with goddesses, dan- 159, 160, 161, 162,
Nausicaa 187, 195, 254, gerous for mortals 230 163, 167, 182, 206,
259 sexuality, discretion of 229, 235–6, 239, 240,
nektar and ambrosia 237– narrator regarding 244–6, 265, 284–5,
8, 250, 263 221–2 297, 298, 300, 304,
nymphs 190, 191, 261–71, sheep and goats 166, 222 306–7, 308, 312, 311,
276–7, 311 silens 264 312, 313, 314; will of
148
singing contests for bards
old age, image of 251 286
Orion 218 Smyrna 287
Otreus king of Phrygia spinning and weaving
196, 210–11 140, 141

OLSON (2012) The Homeric Hymn To Aphrodite and Related Texts PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLSON (2012) The Homeric Hymn To Aphrodite and Related Texts PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S.

Siegmar Döpp, Adolf Köhnken, Ruth Scodel

Text, Translation and Commentary

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

” 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

In late spring 2008, I began work on a commentary on the Homeric Hymn

Preface ....................................................................................................... vii

Bibliography ............................................................................................. 321

Index .......................................................................................................... 327

LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen, 1955–2010)

Ancient authors are abbreviated as in LSJ, except that I have substituted

1. Anchises, Aeneas, and the Aeneidae

Anchises is not a character in the Iliad,1 which is set a generation after

Ilus Assaracus Ganymede

Tithonus Priam (other sons) Anchises

Paris Hector (other sons) Aeneas

ਬȜȜȘȞȚțĮ૙Ȣ ਥĲȣȝȠȜȠȖİ૙ıșĮȚ ĳȦȞĮ૙Ȣ. ੢ıĲİȡȠȞ į੻ țĮĲȦĲȑȡȦ ıĲĮįȓȠȚȢ ਦȟȒțȠȞĲĮ İੁȢ

The date of composition of the hAphr. is unknown. As I argue in detail in

As diagnostic criteria, Janko adopts the following:24

plurals in -ȠȚȢ and -ȘȚȢ/-ĮȚȢ standing before a consonant; and of a-stem

common scale precisely where we know that it belongs, somewhere be-

3. Poetic Affiliations of the Homeric Hymn

hAphr. 103 įȩȢ ȝİ ȝİĲ੹ ȉȡȫİııȚȞ ਕȡȚʌȡİʌȑૅ ਩ȝȝİȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮ (Anchises’

hAphr. 160 ĲȠઃȢ Į੝ĲઁȢ țĮĲȑʌİĳȞİȞ ਥȞ Ƞ੡ȡİıȚȞ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȠ૙ıȚȞ (the animals

țĮ੿ ਕȞȘȡȑȥĮȞĲȠ șİȠ੿ ǻȚ੿ ȠੁȞȠȤȠİȪİȚȞ / țȐȜȜİȠȢ İ੆ȞİțĮ ȠੈȠ, ੆Ȟૅ

țĮ੿ ʌĮ૙įİȢ ʌĮȓįİııȚ įȚĮȝʌİȡ੻Ȣ ਥțȖİȖȐȠȞĲĮȚ (Aphrodite’s promise to

ȝİĲĮıĲȡİĳșİ૙ıĮ, țĮĲૅ ੕ȝȝĮĲĮ țĮȜ੹ ȕĮȜȠ૨ıĮ (of Aphrodite, entering

4. Aphrodite and Sexuality

5. The Metrics of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite

Metrical practices in dactylic hexameter poetry appear to correlate broadly

In the hAphr., combination of stop plus liquid generally renders a preced-

1, 9), as in early epic generally. There are no examples of ‘internal correp-

2. Dactyls and Spondees

Of the 32 possible dactylic hexameter verse types, the hAphr. uses 26 (a

Table I: Line-structure in the hAphr. (d = dactyl, s = spondee)

Table II: Dactyls and spondees in the hAphr., by foot

Other archaic poetry

4th Century and later

The hAphr. contains 30 (= 9.6%) spondeiazontes, i.e. lines with a contract-

4. Word Break in other Positions

There are no violations of Hermann’s bridge (which prohibits word-

5. Correption and Hiatus

‘Epic correption’ (the treatment of a final long vowel or diphthong as light

otherwise problematic, involve ĲȠȚ or ਵĲȠȚ and apparently represent the

6. Elision and Crasis

Ǽlision in the hAphr. is restricted to short vowels:

APPENDIX: External metrics in the other ‘major Hymns’

27 of 32 possible forms; five most common forms = 68.5% of lines

The hAphr. is preserved in at least 22 manuscripts, nine of which are gen-

5.147 į੻ ਪțȘĲȚ Hermann : įૅ ਪțȘĲȚ vel įૅ ਪțĮĲȚ ȍ

5.49 ȖİȜȠȚȒıĮıĮ Ȍ : ȖİȜȐıĮıĮ M

5.38 İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȘȚ M : İ੣Ĳૅ ਥșȑȜȠȚ vel İ੣Ĳİ șȑȜȠȚ Ȍ

5.237 įȒ ĲȠȚ Mx (įૅ ਵĲȠȚ Hermann) : įȒ ĲȚ f : įૅ Ƞ੡ĲȠȚ p

5.20 ʌȩȜȚȢ Ĭ (ʌĲȩȜȚȢ mg.ī Chalc.) : ʌȩȜİȚȢ M : ʌȩȞȠȢ p

28.5 ĲİȪȤİૅ ȍ : ĲİȪȤૅ AQ

M is thus the sole surviving representative of one branch of the tradition,

Reconstruction and assessment of the version of the text in Ȍ is none-

The text of the Hymns contained in this volume is based on a collation of

Hymn 5: İੁȢ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȞ

ȂȠ૨ıȐ ȝȠȚ ਩ȞȞİʌİ ਩ȡȖĮ ʌȠȜȣȤȡȪıȠȣ ਝĳȡȠįȓĲȘȢ

Tell, Muse, if you will, of the deeds of Aphrodite rich in gold,

ʌ઼ıȚ į੻ ਩ȡȖĮ ȝȑȝȘȜİȞ ਥȣıĲİĳȐȞȠȣ ȀȣșİȡİȓȘȢ.