the genital organs, though we have searched in vain for analogous passages. But in that case it could be made to apply only to the female genitals or to the rectum, because these only exhibit a breach of continuity (ἕλκος,—a wound); or else we should have to suppose the seed to be looked upon in a sort of way as matter discharged, and the male genitals, which secrete it, therefore called ἕλκος (a wound), for otherwise the ἑαυτοῦ (his own) cannot be got in. No less uncertain is the meaning of διελέγετο; “to converse” cannot possibly be taken as the sense here. _Suidas_ and _Hesychius_ explain διαλέγεσθαι by συνουσιάζειν (to associate with). _Pollux_, Onomast. V. 93. περὶ μίξεως ζώων (On the intercourse of Animals) says, διαλεχθῆναι.—οὐδ’ ἡ διάλεξις, ἀλλὰ διειλέχθην αὐτῇ καὶ διειλεγμένος εἰμὶ ὡς Ὑπερίδης. II. 125. Ὑπερίδης δὲ διειλεγμένος, ἐπ’ ἀφροδισίων. Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ διαλέξασθαι ἔφη. (διελεχθῆναι,—not ordinary conversation, but it means “I had converse with her”, or “I am conversant”, as says Hyperides, II. 125. Now Hyperides says “conversant with”, speaking of love intercourse; and Aristophanes “to have converse with”). Comp. Küster and Brunck on Aristophanes’ Plut. 1083. Moeris p. 131. Abresch, lect. Aristaenet. p. 50. But the meaning of accomplishing coition is implied already in προσομιλῶν (associating with), so that διαλέγεσθαι must here indicate some other more special circumstance. The Scholiast of Aristophanes on Lys. 720 interprets διαλέγουσιν by διορύττουσιν (bore through), penetrate); accordingly we must take διαλέγεσθαι as deponent, in which case we should have to read τὰ πρὸς τὸ ἕλκος _αὐτῆς_ διελέγετο (he penetrated _her_ private parts), and make the τὰ πρὸς ἕλκος refer to the actress and her hymen (or fibula?), just as in the passage cited from Josephus on p. 315. the expression περὶ τὸ αἰδοῖον (about the privates) signifies the foreskin. If we would keep ἑαυτοῦ (his own), then we must take διαλέγομαι in the sense of καθαίρειν (to purify) (Hesychius says διαλέγειν, ἀνακαθαίρειν,—to purify), and put in an οὐκ (not),—i. e. he did not purify his genitals. If we keep to the meaning of separation, division, we might understand the sentence as saying that Hero tore apart his foreskin; though really ἕλκος could scarcely be applied with any propriety to the male genitals at all. For its being used of the female genitals on the other hand a good analogy is offered by ἐσχάρα (a scab), which occurs in Aristophanes, Knights 1286. and often elsewhere. Eustathius, on Odyss. p. 1523., says: δῆλον δ’ ὅτι ἐσχάραν καὶ τὸ γυναικεῖον ἐκάλουν μόριον. (Now it is evident they used to call the female part ἐσχάρα). However in this case the learned reader must be left to decide for himself.