Most scholars accept Vollmer's conjectureFootnote ¹ deicere in line 118 and understand the passage about the siege of Megara as follows: neither the citizens [sc. of Megara] nor the king [sc. Nisus] himself fears to strike down the [Cretan] squadrons that flock in hostile band to the walls and valorously to blunt the unconquered spirit [sc. of the foe], since it is enough to remember the answer of the gods [according to which Nisus’ country and kingdom will be secure as long as his purple lock is preserved].Footnote ² Lyne—though he accepts this interpretation in his edition of, and commentary on, the Ciris—raises a reasonable doubt regarding the expression uirtute retundere mentes, which is, in his opinion, ‘a bold and striking expression in the context’.Footnote ³ Indeed, it may seem awkward that the object of retundere is mentes and, moreover, that it is mentes indomitae: we would rather expect, in fact, that the adjective indomitus should refer to the unconquered Megarians rather than to the Cretan aggressor. The line, therefore, needs further emendation, and in order to correct it we should answer the following question: what or who is being repelled by both the citizens and the king of Megara?

The first scholar who seems to have correctly understood the object of retundere was Sillig. He conjectured: sed neque ueretur […] turmas ducentem indomita uirtute retundere mentis, and added the following explanation: ‘Ut ducentem intelligas Minoem’, thus suggesting that it is the king of Crete who is repelled by the Megarians.Footnote ⁴ Sillig's emendation, however, has one shortcoming, namely, that the genitive mentis is superfluous (indomita uirtute stands well alone and does not need mentis) and is located at the end of the verse where something important is usually found. Another emendation pointing to Minos as the object of retundere has recently been published by Kayachev; yet his proposal—sed neque ueretur […] turmas reicere et indomita uirtute retundere Minon—is based on the form Minon, which is only attested in Greek; moreover, the author of the Ciris twice uses the accusative form Minoa (in lines 132 and 367), and the corruption of Minon into mentes is rather unlikely from a palaeographical point of view.Footnote ⁵

In my opinion, there is a better solution to the problems arising in the passage discussed here. Thus I suggest the following emended text of line 118:

the meaning of which would be: ‘neither the citizens nor the king himself fears to strike down the squadrons that flock in hostile band to the walls and to fend off Minos with their unconquered spirit’. This solution not only introduces the desired object of retundere but also provides the perfectly understandable expression indomita mente, to which close analogies in Latin are quoted by Lyne (animus indomitus: Plaut. Bacch. 612, Livy 38.9.1, Tac. Ann. 1.33.5; ingenia indomita: Livy 21.20.8, 38.12.4, 38.48.12; pectore indomito: Stat. Theb. 11.714).Footnote ⁶

Finally, the reading as suggested above does not assume a process of corruption that would be impossible or difficult to explain: in the first stage uirtute replaced Minoa as a gloss on indomita mente, and afterwards the lack of the object of retundere brought about the transformation of indomita mente into the accusative indomitas mentes. In support of my conjecture it may also be observed that the accusative Minoa is found in the same position within the line in Ciris 132 o nimium cupidis Minoa inhiasset ocellis and 367 essent qui generum Minoa auctoribus extis.Footnote ⁷