^{page 403 note 1} This is regarded by Giangrande, (CQ N.s. xvii [1967], 86 n. 1)Google Scholar as a case of superlative for comparative, but the alleged examples in Apollonius are doubtful: ὕατατoν 4. 510 (ὕστєρoν West, p. 12) need only mean ‘in the end’; µ⋯kιστoν at 1. 87 can be otherwise explained.

^{page 403 note 2} ‘is’, not ‘was’—the hackneyed ἔτι of the aition, and immediately intelligible as such.

^{page 404 note 1} So Fränkel: Ardizzoni returns to ⋯øιkάνει, which he would not have done if he had set 1. 680 beside 4. 1157. Cf. also Fränkel's note on 4. 513.

^{page 404 note 2} Prof. Vian reminds me of the warrior Είλισσoς in Q..S. 1. 228.

^{page 404 note 3} The subject is ; here είλίoσoνται (or -oντo) means not ‘hanter’ (Vian) but ‘dance’, the normal occupation of nymphs (cf. 1. 1135, 4. 1198). The ambiguity of είλίσσoµαι. recalls the spirit of Callimachus’ fourth hymn.

^{page 405 note 1} REG lxxxii (1969), 232.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 2} Not ‘misery, distress’: cf. kαkóν 291, and, more remotely, kαkóν 251.

^{page 406 note 1} Prof. Vian kindly informs me that S has θ⋯λkτoν before, and θ⋯λkτιν after, correction (see below).

^{page 406 note 2} This plainly recalls the jingle of Od. 12. 11 (where there was a variant άkρóτατoς, which Apollonius could not have recognized). Ardizzoni's note here is unfortunate.

^{page 407 note 1} An echo in Mosch. Eur. 118 (δελøίς 117).

^{page 407 note 2} Cf.Vian, F., Recherches sur les Posthomerica de Quintus de Smyrne, 81 f.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 3} άkηδ⋯α…νóστoν at A.R. 4. 822 seems to be too far away to have influenced either Quintus, or, as Fränkel appears to believe, the scribes of Apollonius at 1. 556. Here we might have expected as a simplification not άkηδ⋯α but, as at I. 888, άπἠµoνα, which is a favourite word of Apollonius’ and which bears some visual resemblance to the rarer word.

^{page 408 note 1} Q.S. 14. 39 f. draws heavily on Apollonius. One imitation in particular is significant. At 46 Quintus says of Helen . This is relevant to A.R. 1. 575 f. άγραύλoω , where editors read PE's µετ’ (kατ’ LAS: deest G), the expected but by no means invariable preposition. It seems to me unlikely that they are right.

^{page 408 note 2} At 932 ., P. Oxy. 2698 offers τ’. Kingston (ad loc.) claims that there is nothing to choose between the two; but δ’ is supported by such passages as 2. 649–52, 4. 572 f.

^{page 408 note 3} Cf.Fränkel, H., Noten zu den Arg. des Ap., 127.Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 1} Giangrande, (CQ n.s. xvii [1967], 90 n. 3)Google Scholar sees the true meaning of δīoς (he refers to Theocr. 25. 51), but he does not carry his suggestion through.

^{page 410 note 2} µελ⋯η in Apollonius means not ‘miserable’ or ‘vain’ but ‘feeble’; cf. Theocritus’ άραιά (═ άσθενἠς, Gow ad loc.), Vian on A.R. 3. 487, and 1. 1247, where the wild animal to whom Polyphemus is compared exhausts itself with roaring ().

^{page 412 note 1} 4. 418 oίóθεν oίó0ν, 1198 oίóθεν oίαι, and oίóθεν alone 1. 270. At 3. ii6gf. χóλoν, the construction has not been properly explained, oίóθεν oίoς means ‘quite alone’, but oίoς also governs the genitive ⋯ταίρων, as oίoς in, e.g., Il. 11. 74 and A.R. 2.15, correctly explained by Mooney ad loc.; άπάνενθε is adverbial. For oίoς ⋯ταίρων see 1. 1240, 4. 912.

^{page 413 note 1} Prof. Vian believes that the őτυ δ⋯ of 549 is picked up by δ⋯ τóτ ἔπειθ’ at 555; to my ear Apollonius rather loses sight of the őτεδἒ, and the sequence of δ⋯s mentionedabove seems dominant (at 1. 318 f. ⋯πεί pα , SG' άkτ⋯νδ’is probably, but not certainly, correct).

^{page 414 note 1} τóτ’ is perhaps possible: ‘It is my considered opinion that we escaped then with Argo's help; the goddess Athene is responsible for that. But (617) do not be anxious, for your future ordeals (µετóπισθεν) are catered for as well.’

^{page 414 note 2} Fränkel's πρoύkυΨαν (accepted by Vian) is strongly supported by Nonn. D. 4. 431, 433, but surely πρoύτυΨαν is the choicer word. At 1. 953 the Argo πρoύτυΨεν, ‘shot forward’; here άνω ⋯ς ᴡ⋯ρα makes the direction explicit.

^{page 414 note 3} A Hesiodic snake too (but merely a dangerous one): Hes. fr. 204. 135 f. M.—W., for which see Morel, W., Hermes, lxi (1926), 233.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 1} For examples of this verb applied to wind see Giangrande, , CQ n.s. xvii (1967), 91.Google Scholar His own solution is ingenious: he insists that pιππ⋯ν must mean ‘wind’, and takes ⋯νενδιóων transitively with ριπ⋯ν; with τωνασσει he understands ταρσóν from the beginning of 934. But this produces an intolerably jerky rhythm.

^{page 416 note 1} Of course these examples stand apart from (e.g.) the treatment of Circe' habitat (cf.Vian, , Chant III, 18 n. 6Google Scholar).

^{page 417 note 1} It is curious that readers of Apollonius seem not to have realized the full extent of Callimachean mischief in this poet, and to have actively and consistently rejected it. When Apollonius makes the Cyclopes sit at their laborious work (i. 730), the text is emended. But Callimachus in his third hymn, upon which Apollonius drew a good deal, stresses their standing posture (49 f., cf. 59). What is the point of denying a connection between the two passages (McKay, K. J., ‘Erysichthon’, Mnem. Suppl. vii [1962], 139 n. 4Google Scholar) when oppositio is cultivated so much, regardless of poetic propriety ? In this line Fränkel's ⋯µµ⋯νoι for ⋯µενoι is a special Pindaric usage which does not look at home in Apollonius’ context.

^{page 419 note 1} Cf. Hermann on Orph. A. 852: ‘Abruptam orationem, qualis est merito minarum regiarum …’.

^{page 419 note 2} Cf. at 230, and Fraenkel on A. Ag. 268. Note the elaborate at 229 f.

^{page 419 note 3} Brunck placed commas after τείσασθαι and kεøαλησιν, which is clearly not acceptable (for τάδε πάντκ cf. τάδε at 4. 10).

^{page 421 note 1} This accounts for the surprising repetition of ἄσπετoν at I. 1181 and 1183. The first is neuter adjective, the second (in spite of 1. 453–4) not a feminine adjective with øυλλαδα, but an adverb with ⋯µ⋯σαντες, as the rhythm in fact suggests.

^{page 421 note 2} So SG; LAPE have kινἒσoνoιν. The latter is lectio facilior (assimilation to kλαξoυσι 1299?), since mood and tense variation of this type (though less involved than here) is found now and again in Homeric epic (see Chantraine, G.H. ii, ŧ253). In writing kιν⋯σωσιν here Apollonius would have been influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by the fact that kινεν in the aorist subjunctive is very common in Homer.

^{page 422 note 1} Cf. Allen-Sykes-Halliday on h. Horn. 21. 1.

^{page 423 note 1} ατιεντα would be ideal here, but it would not conform to Apollonius’ strict rules of synizesis.