There are two ways in which the text as it stands has been construed: (1) Cypris came sweet and smiling (i.e. taking ἁδ. καì ἁ K. as=ἁ K. ἁδ. καì); (2) sweet Cypris also came smiling (i.e. taking ἁδ καì K. as=καì ἁ ἁδ. K.). Of these (1) is at least grammatical. The order of words, too, can be paralleled (Hiller cites 10. 34; 11. 58; 15. 79; 17. 93; 22. 25 and 68). But what I think cannot be paralleled is this curious conjunction of adj. and partic. (2) is frankly ungrammatical. Yet Legrand (Étude sur Théocrite, p. 309) adopts it, adding: ‘Il faut reconnaitre une construction incorrecte au moins dans ces quatre passages: 1. 95…; 1. 109 ὠραîος ξὤδωνις (=καì ό ὡραîος Aδωνις); 4. 49 ῥοικον τὸ λαγωβΌλον (=τò ῥοικον); 29. 33 τàν γένυν ἀνδρειαν (= τὰν ἀ. γένυν). Of the last three we can with confidence say that ὡραîος (if the line be genuine) and ἀνδρειαν are to be taken as predicative; in 4. 49 Legrand himself now (in his Budé edition) accepts the emendation τι for τΌ, as he does in the similar 15. 145 passage. There is not, in fact, sufficient, or indeed any, evidence to convict Theocritus of this solecism. Emendation has been rife, but unhappy. ‘Nescio an ipse rem acu tetigerim, legens ᾖνӨέ γε μὰν, ἀνíα δὲ, καì ἁ K. γ.,’ writes Briggs. We think he has not.