^{Page 147 note 1} Wilamowitz's further points–that Heracles is, surprisingly, still unknown to Phyleus, and that his reference to Eurystheus (205) must therefore be unintelligible are not, I think, conclusive. Phyleus's enquiry whether it was his companion who killed the lion is not incom-patible with his knowing Heracles's name and errand. These have not, indeed, been disclosed to him in the poem, but the poet might reasonably invite us to assume disclosure as a necessary incident of Heracles's first encounter with Augeas which he does not narrate.

^{Page 147 note 2} It is not only rough but useless to read νδεκμηνος (Blätt. bay. Gymn. 25, p. 242), for the interval between seed-time and harvest is much less. Other proposals are no more persuasive. Wilamowitz, Reden u. Vorträge, 1, p. 288)Google Scholar treats 14 as a reply to 13, and translates Nein, ich habe, sett's Arbeit gibt, in dem eigenen Gärtchen keinen Tag noch jäten gekonnt; but that is in defiance of τοιγρ

^{Page 148 note 1} At 7. 35 ώς means day, not morning, and is therefore compatible with τ μεσᾳυριον in 21: cf. 16. 5, and perhaps 12. 1, 17. 59; and see C.Q. IX. p. 135.

^{Page 149 note 1} Cf. Philemon fr. 168 K, A.P. 6. 227, Ov. Her. 17. 71, Am. 2. 15. 2, Mart. 9. 99.8. Odyssean δ' λγη τε Φλς τε (ζ 208=ξ 58) usually cited seems different in colour.

^{Page 150 note 1} Legrand is aware of the difficulty, τᾴ γ αλατειᾳ does not help.

^{Page 150 note 2} The second reference to singing (1. 39), not inconsistent with the present purpose of the poem, might yet be thought more consistent with another.

^{Page 151 note 1} I will not add to the list 24. 49, though Amphitryon's domestic arrangements puzzle me, and I have sometimes wondered whether theo-critus envisaged them very plainly himself. Nor 15. 137–142, where the inelegances may be calculated.

^{Page 151 note 2} Ath. XIV. 652E; but see Paton, and Hicks, , Inscr. of Cos, p. 358Google Scholar; Hermes 34, p. 616.

^{Page 152 note 1} Wilamowitz, who writes Στρατιώτας in I3, would add an Acarnanian; but that overlooks the symmetry of the sentence. Of the three men, A's nationality is given; B's nationality and professin; C should have profession only — ςτρατιώταΛτυμνον, and two by Philipp on Latymnum and Latymnus, do it something more than ade-quate honour. Contrariwise, of Himera of Haleis in these parts not a word.

^{Page 151 note 2} Nor would I read in 23 τ Φςκοι is an ancient name for Locrians (Philologus 67, p. 466), though the name ´ςKκος may be connected with that fact. Has anyone calculated the distance between τ Φςκων and the Neathus?