297 
unconscious. (2) Concerning the etymology. He thought that 
the first idea of a great journey might be taken from that of 
the sun, but he doubted whether the human interest, intro- 
duced into the Odyssey, allowed us to bring it mto the same 
category, except so far as that one archetypal idea might under- 
lie it. Therefore he doubted whether the allegory was at all 
present to the mind of the writer; and so he thought that 
the journey and its incidents were essentially human; the 
framework indeed might be supposed suggested by the solar 
journey, but in the incidents the writer was dwelling on the 
human side, and so he doubted whether it could be called a 
solar myth. (3) As to the etymology, the derivation from 
é3iaceto, as used by Ino, “he with whom the gods were 
angry,” was generally accepted in the best and most critical 
times of antiquity; and still has the sanction of Curtius, who 
refers it to ddvccouat, explaining the o as prosthetic (of 
6Beror, &c.), thus it would mean the wrathful one, and 
express the majesty of anger. 
Mr Paty said he thought that the author viewed Odysses 
simply as a man, but unconsciously followed the tradition. ; 
Mr Jupp asked how far Mr Paley regarded the details, e.g. 
those concerning Circe, Calypso, as supplied by the earlier 
allegory, or as arising from the mind of the poet when writing 
on a very simple framework. . 
Mr Patsy said it was very difficult to say, but he thought 
that the vitality of the myth would affect them. 
Mr FENNELL thought the human interests attached to a 
myth would cause a very anthropomorphic form to be given to 
it; and so a hero would grow out of the myth, and action be 
grouped around him, in accordance with a tendency common in 
ancient times. He thought Curtius might be wrong about 
the prosthetic omicron, and that it might be a relic of an old 
preposition, which still remained in Sanserit. 
