^{page 11 note 2} e.g. Legrand, , Éclude, 90Google Scholar, Buc. Gr. 1. 179; Bignone, , Teocrito, 320Google Scholar; Pohlenz, , Gott. Anz. 1935, 397Google Scholar. Wilamowitz's study (Textgeschichte, 182) hardly considers the poem as a whole.

^{page 11 note 3} The Hymn is dated by Wilamowitz (Textg. 184)in the sixth century, but it may be earlier; see Allen, , Halliday, , and Sikes, , H. Hymns, p. 436.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} C.Q. xxxii. 10.

^{page 11 note 2} The connexion is assumed by Schwartz (Charakterköpfe, 2. 63) and von Blumenthal (RE, 5A. 2014); denied by Wilamowitz in an obiter dictum (Textg. 194). I know of no discussion of the question.

^{page 11 note 3} See T. 44, A. 2. 4: T. 54, A. 22:T. 65, A. 14: T. 85, A. 72 (ἰδρεη is a rare word): T. 94, A. 38: T. 104, A. 108: T. 126, A. 83. In Id. 13 there are similarities to parts of the Argonautica not concerned with Hylas, and here, considering how rarely fire-drills are mentioned in antiquity, I think it improbable that T. 33 is unconnected with A.'s similar landing-scene in the Hylas episode (1.1184…), for Id. 13 proves him to have at some time studied that episode closely. The connexion was noticed by Casaubon (Lect. Theoc. ch. 20). T. 116 f. (with Call. H. 3. 186) may well be connected also with A. 1. 22, though perhaps I shouldadd that I subscribe neither to Gercke's interpretation of A. nor to histheory of the relationship between the passages (Rh. Mus. 42. 598). See also T. 27 f., A. 1. 2 f., 2.321. I mention in passing, though not as necessarily evidential here, that T.'s puzzling (apparentlyprogressive) γρ δ in 115, which commentators disdain to notice, occurs in precisely similar contexts at A. 2. 851, 1090, 4. 450.

^{page 12 note 1} At least I have noticed none unless ἴσκον, said, (167) should be so regarded. This is Apollonian (1. 834, 2. 240, al.), but it is derived, and may be derived independently, from Od. 19. 203, 22. 31. It is used also by Lycophron (574).

^{page 12 note 1} This spring is not T.'s invention, for, as Wilamowitz remarked, it is included in the representationof the scene on the Ficoroni cista (Wien. Vorleg. 1889, T. 12), which is itself of late fourthcentury date, though the picture no doubt goes back to an earlier model.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} As in the Hylas story, T. and A. differ in some points as to the legend, though their differences are not now very illuminating. In the Amykos story the chief variations are that A. places the episode before, T. after, the passage of the Symplegades, and that in A. Amykos is killed outright in the boxing-match whereas in T. he is spared to lead a better life. The first difference may reflect an antiquarian dispute as to the home of the Bebrykes, who were extinct before the time of Eratosthenes (Pliny, , N.H. 5. 127Google Scholar). A. agrees with Strabo, who places them in the neighbourhood of Cyzicus and Abydus (13. 586), and his subsequent narrative (135 ff.) is designed to account for their disappearance. They were reputed to be of Thracian origin (Strab. 7. 295, 12. 541, al.), and I think that T.'s epithet ε κομωντες (77), which has puzzled some commentators, is a learned allusion to the fact; for when Aischinas at 14. 46 says Kyniska has not been near him for two months , he is referring to his unbarbered head, on which his friend has commented at 4. That is to say that T., perhaps remembering the Θρικες κκομοι of Il. 4. 533 and the Ἄβαντε ς πθεν κομωντες of Il. 2. 542 (to whom Aristotle ascribed a Thracian origin), thought the Thracians wore their hair long, though according to hisscholiasts he was wrong.

As to the conclusion of the fight, mythographers (Apollod. 1. 119, Hygin. 17) agree with A. or follow him, but Σ Ap. Rh. 2.98 assert that in Epicharmus and Pisander , and where in works of art the end of the fight is shown Amykos is always tied up (Wien. Vorleg. 1889, T. 12; Trendall, Frühital. Vas. T. 5; Gerhard, Etr. Spieg. 5. 91; Matthies, , Praen. Spieg., p. 79Google Scholar; Vendita Sarti, T. 12; Körte, Urne Etr. 2. 35; Furtwaengler, Ant. Gemm. 61. 22). T.'s conclusion is generally assumed to be his own invention. I remark, however, that as the monuments cannot, and Σ Ap. Rh. do not, tell us what happened to Amykos after he was bound, the binding may have been a preliminary, omitted by T., to imposing the oath. According to the note already cited Deiochus , and he too may have ended the story as T. does, though, if so, he cannot be proved to have done so before T.

One more antiquarian point. If, as seems probable, T.'s σπεῖραι and ἱμντες (80 f.) differ from each other, T. anachronisticallyarms his boxers with the later fortified form of ἱμντες—the σφαῖρα of Plat. Legg. 830 B or the ἱμς of Paus. 8.40. 3, Philostr. Gymn. 10, if indeed these are not the same. A. (52) gives them the plain ἱμντες worn already at Il. 23. 684 and, presumablyin reference to the story that Amykos invented them (Clem. Al. Strom.363 P; Σ Plat. Legg. 830 B), makes Amykos provide both pairs andboast their merits. Amykos offers Polydeukes his choice and the latter disdains to choose—si good touch, which T. if he was following A. maywellhave felt tempted to borrow.

^{page 13 note 1} Wilamowitz's arguments (Textg. 191) seem to me in the main untouched by the criticisms of Konnecke (Philol. 72. 379) and Bignone (Teocrito, 321). If the words , cited from T. at E.M. 290. 53, arereally his, the missing lines may well have supplied their context.

^{page 13 note 1} So I shall call them, for their father's name is commonly Ἀφαρες. The patronymic occurs only in the forms Ἀφαρητ (Pind. N. 10. 65) and Ἀφαρητιδαι. (Ap. Rh. 1.131), but Ἀφρης is found only at Pseudo-Plut. Mor. 315 E.

^{page 13 note 2} Homeric Hymns, ed. T. W. Allen, p. 103.

^{page 13 note 3} 547 (P. 194 Scheer).

^{page 13 note 4} What he says is (546) observes the scholiast, and though his reason is insufficient his impatience is intelligible.

^{page 14 note 1} See Wentzler, Ἐπικλσεις, 5.18; Holzinger on Lyc. 546; Wilamowitz, Texig. 188; Robert, Gr. Heldensage, 314; RE, 5. 1113; Roscher, 2. 2208. I have notseen Wentzler in Epithal. f. W. Passow, to which Wilamowitz refers.

^{page 14 note 2} Whatever part the Leukippides played in the Cypria, their abduction was a common theme of artists long before the thirdcentury. To say nothing of vases, it appeared in the temple of Athena Chalkioikos at Sparta (Paus. 3. 17. 3) and on the throne at Amyclae (ib. 18.11), and appears in the frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi(Poulsen, Delphi, 113).

^{page 14 note 3} Paus. 4.3.1 speaks of a μχη περ τν βον but does not mention the circumstances.

^{page 14 note 4} There is possibly an earlier trace of this story in a sixth-century metope from the ‘Sicyonian Treasury’ at Delphi where the Dioscuri and Apharidae are seen driving cattle (B.C.H. 20. 662, pl. 11; Fouilles de Delphes, 4. 4; Poulsen, Delphi, 86; de la Coste-Messeliére, Au Museèe de Delphes, 96,199 and, on the building, 41).

^{page 14 note 1} In Ovid Lynkeus kills Kastor, Polydeukes Lynkeus, and Zeus Idas; in Hyginus Kastor kills Lynkeus, Idas Kastor, and Polydeukes Idas. The betrothal to the Apharidae appears also in ΣPind. N. 10.112. At Σ Lye. 538, perhaps by a confusion, the girls are betrothed to the Dioscuri and abducted by the Apharidae.

^{page 14 note 2} The same doubt arises over the version of the Daphnis legend used in Id. 1, and in both cases the allusive way in whichthe story is handled suggests that T. expected at any rate the more learnedof his audience to know what he was talking about.

^{page 14 note 3} There would be monumental evidence if Benndorf's interpretation of a relief of about 400 B.C. from the Heroon at Gyeulbashi were secure (Benndorf, Heroon v. Gjölbaschi-Trysa, 159, T. 16). There the scene of the abduction is a building—house or temple—in front of which elaborate preparations for a feast are in progress. Among those pursuing the Dioscuri are two men on horseback whom Benndorf took for the Apharidae. The feast, he thought, was the marriage feast of the Apharidae and Leukippides, which is given as the occasion of the abduction by σ Pind. Nem. 10. 112. This interpretation, however, in any case uncertain, has been criticized by Körte (Jahrb. 31. 265), whotakes the horsemen to be merely members of the posse turning out to help. It may be mentioned that the Apharidae nowhere appear on vases which represent the rape of the Leukippides. I remark that T. can hardly envisage the girls as abducted from the wedding, for though that situation would square well with his (140) it is hardly compatible with 149 ff.

^{page 14 note 4} Lycophron probably meant his readers to interpret according to the Cypria: what he says may be found by the curious at 550 ff. It is true that Kastor came to life again, but the credit for this belongs to his brother, who shared his own immortality between the two.

^{page 15 note 1} The Dioscuri do not figure largely there, but, if T. did not choose to invent, the incident mentioned at Ap. Rh. 4. 650 seems capable of development.

^{page 15 note 2} Ap. Rh. 1.151; Orph. Arg. 180; Val. Fl. 1.461; Apollod. 1. 9.16; Hygin. 14.15.

^{page 15 note 3} Except Hyginus.

^{page 15 note 4} Tyndareos was variously called son of Perieres and Gorgophone, of Oibalos and Gorgophone, and of Oibalos and a nymph Bateia; and was thus brother, half-brother, or unrelated, to Aphareus. See Roscher, 3. 696, 5.1406.

^{page 15 note 1} At 146 he arms his combatants with μχαιραι which they cannot possibly carry; at 177 ff. he seems not to envisage the purpose of the proposed duel. I have written on these passages in C.Q. xxiv. 146, xiii. 22 respectively and need not repeat here what I said about them. My remarks on 146 had been, I find, anticipated by Könnecke (Philol. 72. 382), and the difficulty was noticed by C. Hartung (Philol. 34. 641). A possible explanation of the oversight will be found below.

^{page 15 note 2} Schwartz (Charakterköpfe, 2.63) regardsPart 3 as a rewriting of an episode in the Cypria, parallel to the rewriting of an episode of the Argonautica in Part 2 and designed to instil the same principles of epic composition; and he draws no distinction between the style or merits of the two parts. Part 2 may well be called reich an Einzelzþgen, die sorgfätig ausziseliert sind, but how Part 3 can be so called passes my comprehension; and I hope it will appear from what I have said that Part 3 is a very poor advertisement for any principle of composition. Besides, Part 3 has almost nothing except the characters in common with the story in the Cypria.

^{page 16 note 1} Goodwin, M.T., §150.

^{page 16 note 2} It is less creditable to Hiller than discreditable to others that he is the only commentator to feel a difficulty.

^{page 16 note 3} The formal end of a hymn normally confines itself to the subject with which the hymn is concerned. In the Homeric Hymnsslight exceptions of various types will be found in 1, 2, and 27 (cf. T. Id. 26), in 9 and 14, and in 31 and 32. Callimachus conforms to the norm except that in 4 Apollo and Artemis are joined to Delos, much as in Id. 16 Syracuse is joined to Hiero. Id. 17 is, I think, regular, for the formula (135) is rather an assertion of Ptolemy's rank among the demigods than an inclusion of them in the tailpiece.

^{page 16 note 1} The Dioscuri, though their quarrel with the Apharidae and perhaps their rescue of Helen from Theseus (fr. 10 Allen) were recorded there, were in no sense the heroes of the Cypria, which was concerned with the antecedents of the Trojan war. Moreover, at 16.48 ff., where Kyknos, a figure from the Cypria, is coupled with figures from the Iliad, T.'s plural οιδο indicates that he did not ascribe the Cypria to the author of the Iliad.

^{page 16 note 2} I should perhaps mention that Eichstaedt, , Adumb. Quaest. etc., 45 (Leipzig, 1793)Google Scholar, dismissed the Idyll as ‘hymnus e pluribus carminum particulis ab Alexandrino rhapsodo inepte consutus’. Legrand (Buc. Gr. 1. 181) is more nearly in agreement with me; he speaks of ‘…un cadre insignifiant: a l'intèrieur de ce cadrè, T. a juxtaposé des morceaux qu'il lui plaisait d'écrire’. But Part 1 is not insignificant.

^{page 17 note 1} They might be substituted as they stand except that ταχων πιβτορες ἴππων would repeat T.'s ἱππες. I do not, of course, exclude the possibility of minor alterations. For instance, in place of the Homeric line (Il. 3. 237, Od. 11.300) , where the Cypria (fr.11 Allen) called Polydeukes and the Hymn μώμητον, T. writes (2) , but his next line , which is quite separable, may be an addition in anticipation of Part 2.

^{page 17 note 2} See C.Q. xxiv. 150.

^{page 17 note 3} There is no sort of indication where Id. 22 or any part of it was composed, but as in the case of Id. 18 (see C.Q. xxxiv. 116) Alexandria would be a reasonable guess, for the Dioscuri were popular in Egypt. The evidence is collected by Visser, Göiteru. Kulte, 17, 83. It is worth remembering that after the deifications of Ptolemy I and Berenike there was in Egypt another pair of Θ;εοΣωτρες to whom praise of the Dioscuri in that capacity would add some lustre; and that the Pharos was dedicated (Strab. 8. 791) whom, as Wilamowitz says (Textg. 183), we had better not attempt to define further. Worth remembering also that Callimachus began his Παννχς with a (Dieg. 10. 6), and employed the Dioscuri to transport Arsinoe to heaven (ib. 10. 12).

^{page 18 note 1} It would also afford a simple explanation of the oversight as to the arms mentioned (p. 15, col. 2, n. 1).