in arguing lateness because the composition is to them inferior and exhibits some Hast und Kürze.

Wilamowitz develops the theory of Leaf and Jebb and makes it more precise. was composed by a rhapsode of the seventh century, in order to bring I and K, then Einzellieder, into a gap in the then Iliad, in which H was followed by A. Wilamowitz' words are, "to make a bridge from H over I and K to A and beyond." But this appears not to be a quite accurate description. There was, in the Iliad as assumed, no gap requiring to be bridged, for A then followed H, much as does now. The better statement would be that the rhapsode wanted to bring in I and K, saw that that could be done between H and A, and did it by composing. We may note, as regards K, that this theory runs counter to other views of the origin of that pariah of the Iliad, and especially to the story, which has been made so much of by Dissectors, that it was a separate lay till Pisistratus took pity on it and gave it its present place. As regards I, many will have difficulty in believing it ever was an Einzellied, and there are many more who will continue to regard the offer of atonement in it as an absolutely essential part of the Story of Achilles as told in the Iliad. I is the fulfilment of Athené's promise in A 213, as the opening of K is of Achilles' warning in A 243.

Wilamowitz has first to fix the limits of the new Verbindungsstück. He decides that it extends from H 323 to a point in I between the Agora and the Boulé early in that book. This piece is shown by internal evidence to be a homogeneous mass. It is the work of the rhapsode, and we need not object to or criticize the proof of its unity. What is of concern to Unitarians is the demonstration that it is late. The grounds are (p. 398) (1) the borrowings from other parts of the Iliad, (2) the dependence of on cyclic poems, (3) a reference to the Theogony of Hesiod, and (4) peculiarities of language. We take them in order.

First, as to the borrowings. The equations relied on are:

α) Θ 491 = Κ 199, ἐν καθαρῷ, ὅθι δὴ νεκύων διεφαίνετο χῶρος— very appropriate, it is said (p. 373), of some men who have (in K) scrambled through the fosse to sit down for a talk, but an Unding of an army of 50,000 men. So has borrowed the line from K.

1

Stier sees in 199 a clear reference to 491.

The line is certainly good in K, but that it was absurd of the poet of to use it of the spot where the Trojan Agora was held cannot be admitted. Editors make no objection. In twelve commentaries I find no absurdity noted. On the other hand it is easy to take objection to K 199-203. The passage "can be cut out clean.” That always raises a presumption of interpolation. Paley thinks 199-201 may be interpolated. Bothe brackets 0 Sn TÓVTOV. b) A marked feature of the Verbindungsstück is a certain Streben nach Parallelismus. Its author was ever striving to duplicate descriptions or incidents. It is mainly by this that the limits of the new composition can be fixed. The trail of the parallelizer is over it all. Critics of the dissecting school usually see in such parallelizing evidence of two poets, one of them a late imitator. Wilamowitz reasons differently. An illustration of his position is to be found on pp. 377 f. In I 14 ff. Agamemnon harangues the host weeping copiously; but that you can hardly have a king speak in public with a stream of tears flowing down his cheeks is, to Wilamowitz, "incontestable.' Surely a strange assertion. Few, we think, who know Homer's Agamemnon, will agree. But Wilamowitz finds absurdity, and explains it thus. The Nachdichter is contrasting Agamemnon with Hector, whose "splendid appearance" he had described in 493-96. There the Trojan leader "leans on his huge spear, which glitters with bronze and gold." That description of Hector is taken from Z 318 ff. So we have at once an example of the "parallelizing art of the poet and of his dependence on other parts of the Iliad."

We are concerned only with the alleged borrowing from Z. Plagiarism by is decreed because in Z the description is "magnificent," the poet calling special attention to Hector's offensive weapon as he visits his brother Paris, who is at the moment furbishing his defensive armour and bow. This appears to be stated in all seriousness, and we leave it to carry conviction as it may, without further comment.

It is added that Zenodotus did not read the lines in -though it is difficult to see how they can be cut out. But Aristarchus took the opposite view (Pierron, a.l.), and modern editors do not bracket

the lines. See also Ludwich, Aristarchs hom. Textkrit. I 270. The lines are admirable in . They are good in Z also. It is most thoroughly Homeric to repeat a happy description, and Zenodotus' διὰ τὸ καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ τόπῳ γεγράφθαι has nothing in it.

c) I 92-95 H 323-26 (p. 380 n). In each passage it is stated that, after a feast, discussion is initiated by Nestor, où kai πρóσlev ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή. In Η the lines must be an interpolation, because no "good counsel" of Nestor's had preceded; in I it had. But different views are taken of kai πрco@ev. It seems best, with Dr. Leaf on I 94, to interpret "of old, without any particular reference." So Paley.

d) The list of chiefs (℗ 262 ff.) who rally against the Trojans is a "miserable plagiarism" from that in H 164-68 of the heroes who offer to fight Hector (p. 390). For in the chiefs do nothing, "which is explicable only by the appropriation of extraneous lines." Nine chiefs are mentioned, and four of them, Diomede, Aias, Teucer and Agamemnon, are active in the sequel--the brief sequel before Zeus interferes (335) to closure the Achaeans' efforts. But could there be greater unreason than to require the poet to mention all or most of the chiefs again? Is he never to have any discretion allowed him?

=

In

e) 331-34 N 420-23 (p. 390 and n)—a well-known case. the former Teucer, disabled by Hector, in the latter Hypsenor, speared by Deiphobus, is carried off by Mekisteus and Alastor. In this case the lines are pronounced original in ℗ and an interpolation in N (though others, as Christ, Prolegg. 65, 70, hold that imitates N). In N, it is said, the poet first lets Hypsenor he killed and then be carried off "groaning” (if σreváɣovтa must be read), which is of course absurd. But all that is said in N (411 f.) of the effect of Deiphobus' spear-cast is that he wounded Hypsenor in the liver, είθαρ δ' ὑπὸ γούνατ' ἔλυσε. The assumption that this means "killed on the spot" is not warranted. In most of the other occurrences of the phrase, A 578, P 349, E 176, II 425, N 360, O 291, ♫ 498, § 69, 236, w 381, it may mean either "killed" or, in a general way, "disabled," "put hors de combat." In v 118 it certainly does not mean "killed." Nor does it in X 335. There, as perhaps in N, the poet no doubt means to imply that a death-blow had been given,

but certainly not that the individual smitten died as soon as struck. In λύτο γούνατα, whether by itself or in the common formula λ. 7. καὶ φίλον ἦτορ, there is never any approach to the suggestion of death. We might refer to the parallel expression Xûσe dè yvîa. It is often used of a man who is apparently killed. In 406, II 805 and Y 726, it means something far short of that. Another reason given is that in N Antilochus had driven off Asios' horses and so could not be present to protect Hypsensor after he fell. But there is nothing in that. Antilochus had time to dispose of the horses and return to the fray.

f) Agamemnon's speech, I 17 ff., has been taken from B 11041 (p. 378). Wilamowitz himself admits that the lines are suitable in I. He seems, however, to err in thinking Agamemnon had summoned only the pioтol. The assembly was an Agora. See lines 11, 13, 33, and Dr. Leaf's Introduction (though in his note on 17 there is speculation).

g) The remaining cases may be grouped together. 342-45 appear to be modeled on O 1-3 (p. 383 n), but another piece of O "uses", because O 376 = 244. H 370 f. is from Σ 298 f. (p. 392 n), and H 462 f. from M 31 f. (p. 395). The scene in Olympus in the opening of and the mutinous move of Hera and Athené are from A and E respectively. That "does not require discussion." In all these cases no reasons are given, and the simple reply in every one of them is, why not vice versa ?

Next, is late because it is dependent on cyclic poems-the Ilias Parva certainly and perhaps the Cypria.

a) 548 and 550-52 were inserted in the Iliad by Barnes from the "spurious Platonic dialogue" (Leaf, a.l.) Alib. ii. Wilamowitz says the lines do not suit in O, "and so are from a Cyclic epos" (p. 375 n). Why? That Quintus Smyrnaeus, VI 644 ff., makes the Trojans camp before the Achaean wall after a victory does not help to this conclusion. Wilamowitz finds it "very easy to believe," but there is no evidence.

b) In the same note it is said to be very easy to believe that in the pursuit of Nestor by Hector the poet of has used the Ilias Parva, and on p. 388 that "the rescue of Nestor by Diomede is known to be imitated (bekanntlich nachgebildet) from the beautiful scene in the

same Cyclic poem which we know from Pindar (Pyth., VI 28 ff., with scholia). So the dependence of the lay on a Cyclic poem is established." Apparently Ilias Parva is a slip for Aethiopis, to which all the conjectures refer. So Heyne, on the passage in Pindar, and Fennell quoting Paley. But no fragment of the abstract of Proclus or of the Aethiopis relating the incident in Pindar's ode is given by Kinkel, and the section on the Cyclics in the Appendix to Monro's Odyssey is silent about it. In fact Welcker (Ep. Cycl., II, 174), though he thinks Pindar took it from Arctinus, says it is nowhere expressly ascribed to the latter.

In Pindar's ode one of Nestor's horses is shot by Paris. Memnon spears at the old man. Antilochus throws himself in front of his father, receives the spear, and is killed. So the only point common to Pindar, supposed to be following a cyclic poem, and , is the shooting of Nestor's horse by Paris. The death of Antilochus at Memnon's hands is known to Homer ( 187). Why must we impute imitation to ? Granting that Pindar took the scene from Arctinus, why may not Arctinus have taken the shooting incident from and Memnon's part from 8? Or why bring in a cyclic poet at all? Pindur may have himself combined. the accounts in Homer and added Antilochus' devotion from some other traditional source. Nothing is clear.

c) The Burial of the Dead, it is said, may have been taken from the Cypria, but it is admitted that this cannot be proved (p. 393).

d) The stay of the Achaeans at Lemnos on their way to Troy, 230, corresponds to the call at Tenedos mentioned in the Cypria (p. 394 n).

We are not compelled or even tempted in any of these cases to believe that is imitating some cyclic poem, known or unknown. On the contrary, the well-known dependence of cyclic poetry as a whole on the Iliad and Odyssey favors the suggestion that the Cyclics are the imitators as in so many other cases.

There appears to be nothing in the scholia as given in Boeckh's edition of Pindar to support the allegation of imitation or derivation.

2 Robert (Homerische Becher 25) also says of the passage in Pindar that it is a reference to "the Ilias Parva or the Aethiopis." But Memnon was slain in the latter and could not appear in the former, the action of which is later.