That the translation of the word Κραταυς, in the celebrated passage of Sisyphus, should have met with indulgence from those who insist on the preservation of Outis, may not be matter of surprise, because, as Mr. C. observes, 'it is now perhaps impossible to ascertain with precision what Homer meant by the word κραταυς, which he only uses here and in the next book, where it is the name of Scylla's dam.' We give it up too, though not willingly, because the ancients appear to have been as ignorant of the being so called as ourselves; some of whom, by cutting the word into two, attempted to make it rather an attribute of the stone itself, than the effect of some external power: but from him, we are more surprised at the observation on the word 'ἀναιδης,' in the same passage, as 'also of very doubtful explication.' Is it not the constant practice of Homer to diffuse energy by animating the inanimate? has he forgotten the maddening lances, the greedy arrows, the roaring shores, the groaning earth, the winged words, the cruel brass, and a thousand other metaphors from life? and if these occurred not to his memory, the observation of Aristotle on the passage in question, as quoted by Clarke, might have removed all doubts about the true sense of the word ἀναιδης, when applied to a rock.
Mr. Cowper, in his interpretation of many words and expressions of dubious explication, has generally chosen that sense which seemed most to contribute to the perspicuity of the passage: thus in Iliad, iv. v. 306, seq. when Nestor instructs his troops before the battle, he has, in our opinion, adopted the best and only sense, though rejected by Clarke, with more subtilty than reason. Thus he has substituted the word 'monster' for the epithet ἀμαιμακετος, Iliad, xvi. 329, with sufficient propriety, whether that word be expressive of enormity of dimension, or untameableness of disposition; in both which senses it occurs in Pindar.[28] We might enlarge on the terms ἀμητροχιτωνας; τροπαι Ἠελιοιο; ορσοθυρη, and a variety of others equally disputed or obscure; but as they will be sufficiently recognized by the scholar, whilst the unlearned reader is enabled to pass smoothly over them, we shall just observe, that the interpretation of the proverbial passage in Odyss. viii. v. 351,
Δειλαι τοι δειλων γε και ἐγγυαι ἐγγυαασθαι
'Lame suitor, lame security,'
is the happiest instance of the superiority of plain sense over learning merely intricate.
When, in Odyss. iv. v. 73, Telemachus describes the mansion of Menelaus, Mr. C., with all the translators, renders Ἠλεκτρον 'amber,' contrary to the explanation of Pliny, who defines electrum to be gold, containing a fifth part of silver, and quotes the Homeric passage.[29] Amber ornaments, we believe, are not mentioned by Homer in the singular. Thus, in Odyss. xviii. 294-5, the golden necklace presented by Eurymachus, is called Ἠλεκτροισιν ἐερμενον, inlaid with amber drops.
Homer, Odyss. xi. v. 579, seq., places two vultures by the sides of Tityus, who entered his entrails, and tore his liver by turns, and adds, to enhance the terror of the image,
ὁ δ' οὐκ ἀπαμυνετο χερσι,
'he had not hands to rescue him;' entranced, no doubt, or chained to the ground. This Mr. C. translates—
"——Two vultures on his liver prey'd,
Scooping his entrails; nor suffic'd his hands
To fray them thence."——
Why not, if he had a hand for each vulture, unless we suppose him chained or entranced?