[63] The vulgate text is given above; but it may be seriously questioned if we ought not to read with Brandreth “γαῖα φυσίζωος, ἥ τε κρατερόν περ ἐρύκει”, to which the variants point. The advan tages of this reading are obvious. It is needless to point out the improvement in the rhythm. γ̂η for “γαῖα” is suspicious (see 3.104). The first syllable of “φυσίζοος” is properly short, cf. “φύσις, ἐρυσάρματες, τανυσίπτερος” etc. And if the word is derived from “ζωή”, we ought to have -“ωος”, not -“οος”. The main difficulty is the fact that in 3.243, Od. 11.301 we have “φυ_σίζοος”. Schulze has shewn how the originally short “υ^” of this and similar verbs (“λύω” etc.) has gradually succumbed to the analogy of the verbal forms with -“υς”- till in later Greek lengthening is almost invariable (App. D, B (2) “α”). Hence we need not be surprised to find a variation of quantity in Homer. And possibly in 3.243, Od. 11.301 we should read “φυσίζωος” with “ω” shortened as in “ἥρωος” (-uu) Od. 6.303. The apparent inappropriateness of the epithet itself (see note on 3.243) is pointed out by Schol. “Τ” (“οὐ καλὸν τὸ ἐπίθετον ἐπὶ νεκρῶν καὶ τύμβων ταττόμενον”). To avoid this difficulty Fick has ingeniously proposed to derive it from *“ζοϝός” a masc. form (Skt. yavas) of “ζεϝά” = “ζεία”, so that “φυσί-ζοος” = “ζεί-δωρος”. This, if correct, would of course be decisive in favour of “φυσίζοος”.
