[37\2: These daimones are called ~epichtho/nioi~ in contrast (not to the ~hupochtho/nioi~ of l. 141, but) to the ~theoi\ epoura/nioi~, as Proclus on l. 122 rightly remarks. Thus in Homer we have ~epichtho/nioi~ regularly used as an adjective, or, standing alone, as an equivalent of men as distinguished from gods. Then the ~hupochtho/nioi~ of 141 are brought in to form another and secondary contrast with the ~epichtho/nioi~.] [38\2: ~r~ 485 ff. It follows that the descriptions of the visits paid by gods to the homes of men are of great antiquity; cf. my _Griech. Roman_, p. 506 ff. Zeus Philios in particular is fond of visiting men: Diod. Com. ~Epi/klêr.~, Mein. _Com._ iii, p. 543 f. (ii, p. 420 K.).] [39\2: ~timê\ kai\ toi=sin opêdei=~ 142. ~timê/~ in the sense not of simple honour but of practical worship, as frequently in Homer, e.g. in such phrases as: ~timê\ kai\ ku=dos opêdei=~, ~R~ 251; ~timê=s aponê/menos~, ~ô~ 30: ~timê\n de\ lelo/gchasin i=sa theoi=sin~, ~l~ 304; ~e/chei timê/n~, ~l~ 495, etc. In the same way here, l. 138: ~hou/neka tima\s ouk edi/doun maka/ressi theoi=s~.] [40\2: Light and dark, i.e. good and bad, ~dai/mones~ are acc. to Roth, _Myth. v. d. Weltaltern_ (1860), pp. 16-17, distinguished in Hesiod's daimones of the golden and silver age. Such a distinction, however, never appears in Hesiod; and it is hardly credible that the gods and spirits of ancient Greek popular belief (which never really admitted the categories good and bad) should in this primitive period have been actually classified in accordance with such categories. At any rate, Greek readers never found anything of the kind expressed in Hesiod: {86} the conception of bad daimones is regularly supported by reference to the philosophers alone (e.g. Plut., _D.O._, 17, p. 419 A, and the conception is certainly no older than the earliest philosophic speculation.] [41\2: l. 141: ~toi\ me\n hupochtho/nioi (epichtho/nioi~ all MSS. except one, see Köchly's Apparatus; also Tz.) ~ma/kares thnêtoi\ kale/ontai.--phu/lakes thnêtoi\~ was read and explained by Proclus. This is clearly wrong, and is corrected to ~phu/lakes thnêtô=n~ (as in l. 123) by Hagen and Welcker. But this transfers from the first to the second race an expression that we cannot be sure Hesiod meant to be transferred. Not merely the words but the sense, too, is thus corrected, without due ground. ~ma/kares~ does not look like a corruption; it is more likely that ~phu/lakes~ is an accidental alteration. ~hup. ma/kares thnêtoi=s kale/ontai~ is the reading of the latest editor: but here to say the least of it the addition of ~thnêtoi=s~ is superfluous. We should rather try to understand and explain the traditional text and show how the poet came by the remarkable expression.] [42\2: When philosophers and philosophizing poets of a later age occasionally refer to the soul when freed from the body as a ~dai/môn~, the expression has a totally different sense.]