^{page 146 note 1} Examples would be, of course, legion. For the Hellenistic tendency to enrich the epic vocabulary by analogy cf. Erbse, Hermes, 1953, p. 166, and my paper ‘Der stilistische Gebrauch der Dorismen im Epos’,in Hermes, 1970, pp. 257 ff. As far as the verbs are concerned, a glance at Veitch, Greek Verbs, will show how Hellenistic poets added their own forms to Homeric defective paraepic digms. The treatment of δíζημα03B9; offered by Schneider, Callimachea, i, pp. 413 f. is instructive in this respect.

^{page 146 note 2} On this cf. my paper ‘Hellenistic Poetry and Homer’, in Antiq.Class., 1970, pp. 46 ff.

^{page 147 note 1} To say that ‘Homer uses ήκω only in the forms ήκω and ήκєιν’ and to add that any ancient ‘reader of an epic poet’, finding the form ήκєν in an epic text, would not ‘think of it as anything else’ than a form of їημι, as Campbell writes (p. 275) is totally arbitrary: certain modern readers of epic poetry, in their ignorance of the ancient state of affairs, have chased certain forms of ήκω from their Homeric text (Becker, Kühner, Jelf: cf. Veitch, Greek Verbs s.v. ήκω), but these modern readers must not be confused with the ancient readers, least of all with the erudite ancient readers for whom Apollonius wrote.

^{page 147 note 2} The variants ήκοι and ήξєις occur, as is well known, in Hes. Theog. 725 and Op. 477.

^{page 147 note 3} The persecution of ήκω in Homer is not new: both Choiroboskos and Eustathius chased it from the Homeric text.

^{page 147 note 4} Cases in which modern critics have deform faced the text of a Hellenistic or late epic poet because they did not understand the technicalities of his Sprachgebrauch are innumerable. Instructive methodological bibliography: for Musaeus and Colluthus, cf. Journ. Hell. Stud., 1969, pp. 139–54; for Oppian, cf. ‘On the Halieutica of Oppian’, in Eranos, 1970, pp. 76 ff.; for Hellenistic poets, cf. ‘Interpretationen Hellenistischer Dichter’, in Hermes, 1969, pp. 440 ff., the already quoted paper ‘Hellenistic Poetry and Homer’, and ‘L' humour des Alexandras’ (‘Classical and Byzantine Monographs’, 2, Amsterdam, Hakkert, in the press).

^{page 148 note 1} Whether κєν is the original reading in Arg. 2. 239 and in i. 74 I shall not discuss here in detail. Considering that the copyists tended to chase forms of κω out of epic texts in antiquity (the absurd variant λθєν in Mosch. 2. I is a significant case), if we apply the criterion of utrum in alterum, it will appear that κєν was what Apollonius wrote and what sedulous copyists (or critics) proceeded to expel from his text. In the case of i. 74, as Platt noted (Journ. Philol. 55, pp. 1 f.) ‘throughout the catalogue of the Argonauts the verbs used are verbs of motion’: ancient copyists, taught—like modern critics of the Merkel–La Roche school!—to remove forms of κω from epic verse, promptly replaced his κєν by the respectable form єν, єєν (with or without iota subscriptum); Apollonius’ σύν . κєν, it may be added, reappears in the late epic Manetho, 4. 393. At 2. 239 Brunck and Wellauer read Κλєιοπáтρη δνοισιν έμòν δόμον κєν κοιтις because this is plainly the lectio difficilior. Κλєιοπáтρην… γον κοιтιν arose because (1) the subject of κєν was assimilated to the subject of the verb νασσον, which verb intervenes between κασιγνήтη and Κλєιοπáтρην; (2) Phineus is boasting that he was a good catch and therefore says that Κλєιοπáтρην could come into his house as a wife by means of δνα, i.e. her dowry; the copyists assimilated Phineus’ words to the normal type δνοισιν γєιν (Arg. 1. 977, Aesch. Prom. 559; Od. 16. 391 δνοισιν διζήμєνος), but Phineus implies that it was he who was sought after by means of a dowry: he was έπίκλυтος őλβ, he was a ruler (νασσον), and his παтήρ was the King Άγήνωρ; (3) the persecuted verb κω was thus eliminated from the text.

^{page 148 note 2} The author of the Orphic Argonautica, a faithful disciple of Apollonius, has κє (from κω) in line 1006, ξє in line 1012, κє (from ημι) in line 1017, and the variants κтο, κє in line 1019; κє (from ημι) occurs in lines 533, 589 (verse numbering according to Dottin's excellent edition, the Introduction to which should be compulsory reading for anyone dealing with epic literature).

^{page 148 note 3} Typical example of Hellenistic ‘arte allusiva’ misunderstood by Campbell. Precisely because of the ‘frequent occurrence of χος κáνєι, χος ξєтαιin Homer’ (Campbell, art. cit., p. 275) Apollonius writes pointedly χος κєν in order to make his point clear (i.e. in order to imply that he believed in the legitimacy of κєν alongside the forms of κω, ίκáνω in Epic). Merkel's κєν, instead of being ‘plainly superior’ to what Apollonius and I are saying, would patently destroy Apollonius’ point (and mine). Poetae grammatki like Apollonius made their grammatical points exactly in this designedly allusive way, as every specialist knows.