[78\1: Strictly speaking Odysseus is supposed to enter into conversation with the women while each informs him of her fate (231-4); every now and then comes a ~pha/to~ 236, ~phê=~ 237, ~eu/cheto~ 261, ~pha/ske~ 306. But the whole section is little more than a review at which Odysseus assists without taking any real part.] [79\1: Cf. _Rh. Mus._ 1, 625 ff. The nearest parallel to such a distinction between an ~ei/dôlon~ and the fully animated ~auto/s~ is to be found in what Stesichoros (and Hesiod before him: see Paraphr. ant. Lyc., 822, p. 71, Scheer, and _PLG._ iii, p. 215) relates of Helen and her ~ei/dôlon~. Prob. this latter story gave rise to the insertion of these lines, ~l~ 602 ff.] [80\1: Cf. 623 ff.] [81\1: Welcker, _Gr. Götterl._ i, 818, and others following him.] [82\1: [Apollod.] 1, 9, 3, 2; Sch., ~A~ 180 (p. 18b, 23 ff., Bekk.) gives as reason for the punishment of Sisyphos that he betrayed to Asopos the rape of his daughter Aigina by Zeus. This, however, does not rest upon good epic tradition. Another story follows up the betrayal with the myth of the outwitting of Death and then Hades by S., after which he is sent down to Hades again and punished by the task of the endless stone-rolling. The story of the double outwitting of the powers of death (cf. the similar fairy tale of _Spielhansel_: Grimm, _Fairy Tales_, n. 82, and _Anm._, vol. ii, p. 163, ed. 1915) is obviously intended humorously, and so it seems to have been treated in a satyr-drama of Aesch., the ~Si/suphos drape/tês~ [Sch., ~Z~ 153.] The fact that this story ends in the punishment of the stone-rolling ought to be sufficient warning against taking it in the serious and edifying sense in which Welcker and his followers interpret it. It is quite contrary to ancient ideas to suppose that Sis. is punished for his cunning as a warning to other crafty (as well as good) men. In ~Z~ 153 he is called ~ke/rdistos andrô=n~ as praise and not blame: so Aristarch. rightly maintained and supported his case by clear ~anaphora/~ to the line of the Nekyia (see Sch., ~Z~ 153, ~K~ 44, Lehrs, _Aristarch._^3, p. 117 and ~l~ 593). The idea that the adj. refers to the ~kako/tropon~ of S. is merely a misunderstanding of Porph. ap. Sch., ~l~ 385. How little anyone thought of S. as a criminal, even with the Homeric story in his mind, is shown by the Platonic Sokrates who _rejoices_ (_Apol._, 41 C) over the fact that in Hades he will meet, amongst others, Sisyphos (cf. also {54} Thgn., 702 ff.). The case of Sis. presents the most serious difficulties that face any attempt to give a moralizing sense (quite outside the poet's intention) to the section of the "three penitents". (See also _Rh. Mus._ 1, 630.)] [83\1: ~G~ 279, ~T~ 260 (cf. _Rh. Mus._ 1, 8). Nitzsch, _Anm. z. Od._ iii, p. 184 f., vainly employs all the arts of interpretation and criticism to deny their obvious meaning to both passages.] [84\1: K. O. Müller, _Aeschylus Eumenides_, p. 167 = E.T., 1853, p. 159.]