Νὺξ δ ̓ ἔτεκε στυγερόν τε Μόρον καὶ Κῆρα μέλαιναν καὶ Θάνατον, τέκε δ ̓ Ὕπνον,† ἔτικτε δὲ φῦλον Ονείρων· [οὔτινι κοιμηθεῖσα θεὰ τέκε Νὺξ ἐρεβεννή.] δεύτερον αὖ Μώμον καὶ Οϊζὺν ἀλγινόεσσαν, Εσπερίδας θ', αἷς μῆλα πέρην κλυτοῦ Ωκεανοῖο 215 215. Ρεσπερίδας 211. στυγερόν μόρον Μ. qu. στυγερὴν Μοῖραν, as in v. 217.) 214. ἀλγεινόεσσαν Μ. 213. τινι Ald. τὸν Κρόνον, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ἥμαρτεν εἰς τὸν ἴδιον πατέρα. The use of τιταίνω (i) is peculiar to this passage, doubtless to suit the long : in Τιτῆνας. Some consider it the same as the Homeric τιταίνω, (Scut. Η. 229, to stretch, and explain it ‘by stretching out their hands" (ὠρέξατο ν. 178). So Εtym. Μ. p. 760, 40, (quoted by Gaisford, Τιτάν παρὰ τὸ τιταίνω, οἱονεὶ οἱ τείνοντες τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸ κόψαι τὰ αἰδοῖα τοῦ πατρὸς Κρόνου. But Hesychius more correctly explains τιταίνειν both by τείνειν and by τίσιν λαμβάνειν. See the note on ἀτάλλων (a) in Opp. 131. He may have adopted, or even have coined, a word after the analogy of τίω (i). Cf. Od. χίν. 84, ἀλλὰ δίκην τίουσι καὶ αἴσιμα ἔργ ̓ ἀνθρώπων. Inf. v. 428, ἐπεὶ Ζεὺς τίεται αὐτήν. Apollonius Rhodius has τίνεσκεν, ii. 475. What is more to the purpose, we have ἄτίτοs in ll. xiii. 414, but ἄτῖτος in xiv. 484. On the same principle, of forcing prosody to suit a supposed etymology, Ovid, Fast. ii. 34, having written • Tune cum ferales præteriere dies,' adds in v. 567 of the same book, Hanc, quia justa ferunt, dixere Feralia lucem.' 211. The offspring of Earth and Uranus having been enumerated and enlarged upon, the children of Night, the daughter of Chaos (123), are given. These may be divided into classes, to both of which the alleged parentage is appropriate; (1) Those relating to Death and its counterpart Sleep; (2) Those denoting gloom, as grief, or the uncertainty of futurity, as Fute, Vengeance, Deception, &c. Thiersch (ap. Goettl.) thought 211-232 the interpo lation of a later rhapsodist. Goettling thinks the poet was bound to add characters antithetical to those of love and harmony just enumerated. Schoemann, p. 64, notices that the offspring of night here mentioned, differently from that at v. 124, contemplates the existence of man on earth, who had not then been created. Van Lennep contends that Hesiod is here merely carrying out his own avowed intention at v. 1067. 212-3. It is pretty evident that both these verses cannot be genuine as they now stand. It is likely however that ἔπειτα δὲ was the original reading, and that a gloss TIKTE superseded it. The distich might be omitted with advantage to the context; for Θάνατον is but a tautology after Κῆρα, and ἔτικτε closely following τέκε is awkward, though even the Attic writers sometimes used the imperfect, and inf. v. 308-10, τέκετο is followed by ἔτικτεν, Cf. inf. 223-4. Heyne also regarded this distich as spurious, as Gaistord has indicated. Cf. inf. v. 758, ἔνθα δὲ νυκτὸς παῖδες ἐρεμνῆς οἰκί' ἔχουσιν, Ὕπνος καὶ Θάνατος, δεινοὶ θεοί. 214. Momus does not here mean the god of laughter and fun. He appears to personify that most cruel of insults, taunts and ridicule in distress; or perbaps slander, disparagement, μομφή ('nata ex invidia calumnia,' Van Lennep). So Theognis used the word, ν. 1233, Οὐδένα, Κύρν ̓ αὐγαὶ φαεσιμβρότου ηελίοιο ἄνδρ' ἐφορῶσι, ᾧ μὴ μῶμος ἐπικρέμαται, and Callimachus, Hymn. Apoll. 113, ὁ δὲ μῶμος, ἵνα φθόρος, ἔνθα νέοιτο. 215. Εσπερίδες. These are called †χρύσεα καλὰ μέλουσι φέροντά τε δένδρεα καρπόν. καὶ Μοίρας καὶ Κῆρας ἐγείνατο νηλεοποίνους, [Κλωθώ τε Λάχεσίν τε καὶ ̓́Ατροπον, αἵτε βροτοῖσι γεινομένοισι διδοῦσιν ἔχειν ἀγαθόν τε κακόν τε,] αἶτ ̓ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε παραιβασίας ἐφέπουσαι οὐδέποτε λήγουσι θεαὶ δεινοῖο χόλοιο, πρίν γ ̓ ἀπὸ τῷ δώωσι κακὴν ὄπιν, ὅστις ἁμάρτῃ. τίκτε δὲ καὶ Νέμεσιν, πῆμα θνητοῖσι βροτοῖσι, Νὺξ ὀλοή· μετὰ τὴν δ ̓ ̓Απάτην τέκε καὶ Φιλότητα, 217. νηλεοποίνας Μ. Daughters of night' because they dwelt in the far west, πρὸς ζόφον, οι the opposite side of the great ocean stream, to which the sun's light was believed not to have access. Cf. inf. v. 275. 294. 216. This verse can hardly be considered genuine as it stands. The plural μέλουσι is very unusual after such a neuter as μῆλα, ‘apples ; hence Muetzell proposed μέμηλε. The addition of φέροντα δένδρεα καρπὸν is tame, unless we supply χρύσεον from the preceding. From the comment of the scholiast we might infer that a line or more has been lost in which mention was made of Hercules slaying the dragon and gathering the apples. Perhaps the original stood somehow thus:—κούρας θ' αἱ ναίουσι πέρην κλυτοῦ Ωκεανοῖο, Εσπερίδας· καὶ Κῆρας ἐγείνατο κ.τ.λ.— κλυτοῦ, ‘audible, or possibly in the much more common sense of κλεινοῦ. Cf. v. 288, 294. 217-22. These verses are included in brackets by Goettling. For first, inf. v. 905-6, nearly the same verses occur again as here 218-9; and secondly, the three Fates are there made the daughters not of Night, but of Zeus and Themis. Both accounts cannot have been given by the same author. But further, it is probable that 220-2, which Goettling perceived to refer to the Kopes alone, belong to another recension where they stood in place of 2189. Perhaps therefore we should only enclose 218-9 in brackets here, regarding them as having been interpolated from the nearly similar couplet 220 905-6. (So also Schoemann has edited.) The epithet νηλεοποίνους is thus rightly followed by the expansion of the same idea in παραιβασίας ἐφέπουσαι &c. According to this view, the Μοίραι here, combined with Κῆρας, will take the sense of μόρον καὶ Κῆρα in v. 211, while the Moîpai of v. 904 will be the goddesses of Destiny. See on Scut. Herc. 249.—For νηλεοποίνους, ‘relentlessly punishing, Ruhnken proposed νηλιτοποίνους, supposing it to mean punishing the guilty. This is remarkably confirmed by the scholium τὰς γινομένας τιμωρίας τῶν κακῶν ἔργων. Stobaeus has ἠλεοποίνους, Ecl. i. p. 9. 220. Hermann and Van Lennep prefer ἐφέπουσιν (with one MS.), οὐδέ ποτε κ.τ.λ. By ἀνδρῶν θεῶν τε παραιβασίαι are meant sins against both men and gods. Whereas Νέμεσις is a woe only θνητοίσι βροτοῖσι, ν. 223. 222. δώωσι is formed after the analogy of ἡβώω, for which see Opp. 698.—όπιν, here for νέμεσιν. See Opp. 187. 224. This verse is perhaps an interpolation, and it is rejected by Flach. There is some natural association between Love and Deception, as between Νέμεσις and Κήρες above. Otherwise it would seem strange to represent Φιλότης as the daughter of Night, unless perhaps, as Hermann supposes, the νύκτερα ἔργα of Aphrodite are alluded to. Goettling's idea is somewhat farfetched conjungendae videntur notiones Φιλότητος et ̓́Εριδος, ut denotent caecam (hoc propter Noctem) Cupididem caecumque Jurgium et Iracundiam." However, φιλότης was the Γῆράς τ' οὐλόμενον, καὶ ̓́Εριν τέκε καρτερόθυμον. 229. ψεύδεα τε Μ. ψευδέας το Ald. ἀμηλογίας τε Μ. attribute of Aphrodite, v. 206, where it is combined with ἀπάτη. Both Heyne and Ruhnken, followed by Gaisford, regard this as a spurious verse. 225. καρτερόθυμον, obstinate, dogged, pertinacious. 227. As λιμός and ἄτη are associated Opp. 230, Ruhnken here proposed any τε λιμόν τε. By λιμός the poet means famine arising from the suspension of agriculture. With λιμὸς we very often find λοιμὸς associated (e. g. Opp. 243), where there is some probability in Heyne's conjecture λοιμόν τε λιμόν τε. Goettling thinks λήθη here is the culpable forgetfulness resulting from apathy and carelessness. Schol. πολλάκις γὰρ ἔριδος πρός τινα γινομένης ἐπιλανθανόμεθα καὶ τῶν προσηκόντων. It is worthy of notice that Virgil, who translates this passage in those wellknown and splendid verses, Aen. vi. 273 seqq., seems to have rendered λήθη by lethum, which is on a par with his rendering Ορκοs in Opp. 804 by Orcus: 'Vestibulum ante ipsum, primisque in Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Pallentesque habitant Morbi, tristis- Et Metus, et malesuada Fames, et 225 230 228. Compare Il. xxiv. 548, αιεί τοι περὶ ἄστυ μάχαι τ' ἀνδροκτασίαι τε. Οd. xi. 612, ύσμίναί τε μάχαι τε φόνοι τ' ἀνδροκτασίαι τε. The following verse enumerates the sorts of ἔρις which consists in verbal disputes, such as arguments and law-suits, as the present one comprises the consequences of violence, and the next (230) refers to factions and bad government. One copy, with the Aldine, here gives ψευδέας τε λόγους, and so Flach, Gaisford, and Van Lennep have edited. The a in ἀμφιλογίας is doubled in pronunciation. 230. As lawlessness, or reluctance to obey established laws, is closely associated with mental delusion, i. e. conceit and infatuation, the poet well calls them συνήθεις, brought up together. Ruhnken, suggesting arηy in v. 227, here would read ἀπάτην. 231. Ορκον κ.τ.λ. This divinity is made the son of 'Epis also in Opp. 804, "Ορκον γεινόμενον, τὸν Ερις τέκε πῆμ' ἐπιόρκοις. In fact, an oath presupposes some kind of contention. Oaths would be wholly needless if men lived in perfect amity. The Greeks especially were so prone to deceit, that nothing short of very strong inculcations of the sanctity of an oath would ensure its being kept. 232. ὅτε τις κε ξεκών. Flach. 233. A catalogue of the marine deities here follows at some length. Pontus was the child of earth, ἄτερ φιλότητος, sup. v. 132. His progeny all refer to some attributes of the sea, as 'Wonder πρεσβύτατον παίδων· αὐτὰρ καλέουσι γέροντα, 235 240 235. νημερτὴς ἐστὶ καὶ Μ. 238. καλλιπάρειον Μ. 240. μεγήρια Ald. ful,' 'Abounding in monsters,' Widelyprevailing. The meaning of Φόρκυς is uncertain. Van Lennep cites Hesyclius, φορκόν λευκὸν, πολιόν, ῥυσόν. We might have expected three female, as there are three male deities. Perhaps therefore a verse has been lost after 238.The name Nereus may involve the root nar or ner, (ναρὸς, Nar, Nero,) perhaps vaF, to flow.' But Curtius says (Gr. Et. 319) "it cannot be decided whether they are derived from va (sna) or vav (snu)." To the sea-god Nereus, as to Proteus and Glaucus, unerring prediction is attributed. Cf. Eur. Οrest. 364, Νηρέως προφήτης Γλαῦκος, ἀψευδὴς θεός. He is κατ' ἐξοχὴν the sea-god, representing the sea itself. 234. αὐτὰρ κ.τ.λ. Though he was the eldest son, he is commonly called yépwv not so much for his age as for his dignity and his justice.—θεμιστέων, cf. v. 85. 237. Θαύμας was the father of Iris, inf. 265. Eurybia appears also to be an elemental power. We have a vast family of names, all denoting the rushing light of the dawn across the sky, or the blaze of splendour which spreads suddenly from one end of the heaven to the other. To this family belong Eurytos and Europa, Euryganeia, Eury phassa, Euryanassa, Eurymedousa, Eurybates, Eurydike, Eurycleia." (Mythology and Folk-lore, p. 13.) 240. μεγήρατα. Some MSS. with Aldus and Hesych. have μεγήριτα. Compare ἀπείριτος, sup. v. 109. The other form of the compound (which has nothing to do with μεγαίρω) is defended by πολυήρατος (ἐρατός). Van Lennep adopts μεγήριτα, children rivalling goddesses' (epis). . 242. τελήεντος, terminal; or, in which all the rivers have their Téλos or ultimate source. “ Est τελήεις, cui nihil ad perfectionem deest in suo genere perfectissimus. Sic apud Homerum passim τελήεσσαι ἑκατόμβαι.” Van Lennep. "Est ultimus fluvius, non avóppoos," Goettling; who takes τέκνα θεάων as a periphrasis for fexí. The poet seems to mean, children by other goddesses as well as by Doris.' 243. Nearly all the names of the seanymphs have some reference to the characteristics or varied aspects of the sea; and hence there can be little doubt that Εὐκράτη, * well-mixed, is a better reading than Ευκράντη, from κραίνω. Aldus, the Scholiast, Apollodorus, and three or four MSS. agree in Εὐκράτη. Goettling would prefer Εὐκρήτη, as more epic; but both he and Van Lennep, with Gaisford, give Εὐκράντη.—For Σα there would seem to have been an an Εὐδώρη τε Θέτις τε, Γαλήνη τε Γλαύκη τε, 245 250 246. ̓Αγαπή 250. εὐξειδὴς 252. ἀἱεροειδέι 2467. Transposed in M. πρωτ 245. σπειώ τε θοὴ M, Ald. MSS. 249. τε om. Μ. cient variant Ναώ (compare ἀέναος). For so the name is said to be written on an ancient vase referred to in Goettling's note. But the Schol. well observes, Σαώ, διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν πλεόντων.Αμφιτρίτη contains the same root as Τρίτων, Τριτογένεια, and the Vedie god of the water and the air, Trita. See Mytho logy and Folk-lore, pp. 72, 205. 245. Θόη θ' 'Αλίη τε Valckenaer, from Il. xviii. 40, for the vulg. Σπειώ τε θοὴ, Θαλίη τ'. 246. ̓Αγαυή. The law of accenting proper names requires that the word should be written 'Αγαύη. But Goettling thinks this rule applicable only to later dialects. We have ̓Αγανὴ in Il. xviii. 42, where a list of above thirty seanymphs is given, many of the names being the same as those here enumerated. Whether one poet borrowed from the other, or both followed older traditions, it is needless to inquire. Virgil, who ornamented in his peculiar way everything which he borrowed, has a very beautiful imitation of these passages in Georg. iv. 336 seqq. Cf. Aen. v. 8256. 247. Goettling derives Ευνείκη from εὐναῖς εἴκειν, to yield to the anchor. This is very improbable. Had Hesiod thought of anchors, he would probably have written Εθναίη. Flach reads Εὐνίκη. Not all the names, e. g. the three in this very verse, and the four in that following (which is identical with Il. xviii. 43), have reference to marine attributes. For Πρωτώ, ‘First-born, it seems safe to substitute Πλωτώ. For Πρωτὼ 00curred (and properly so, as meaning first-born ' ν. 243. Graevius suggested Κραντώ.-Dr. Flach reads Πρωθὼ (for Προωθώ) after Schoemann. Virgil has Nereia Doto, Aen. ix. 103. 249. Perhaps Πρωνομέδεια. Cf. Ar. Ran. 665, Πόσειδον, ὃς Αἰγαίου πρῶνος -μέδεις. For ̓Ακταίη several editors read Ακραίη. 250. Il. xviii. 45, Δωρὶς καὶ Πανόπη καὶ ἀγακλειτὴ Γαλάτεια, and so Flach here reads. Hermann suggests Πανόπεια, which metrically is an improvement, and Пavónn was very likely taken from the Homeric verse. Virgil has 'Glauco et Panopeae et Inoo Melicertae,' Georgic. i. 437. 253. As the number of the Nereids was fifty, while Hesiod enumerates fiftytwo, Boissonade (after the Scholiast) rightly regards Κυματολήγη not as a Nereid, but as the genius of calm (Γαλή νεια, Eur. Hel. 1458), who is associated with Amphitrite (already enumerated v. 243) in assisting a Nereid to calm the winds and the waves. To reduce the list to 50, Dr. Flach reads Σπειώ τε toὴ in 245, and Goettling (also with the |