contrasts those who were out of town (toùv dè ou¬ κ e¬pidhmoûntav) with those who were in their homes (κaì toùv mèn e¢ndon κatélabon) paints a much more credible picture. The text of Lys. Or. 1.41 should be made to agree accordingly by excising ou¬κ before e ¢ndon there. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of the Classics Urbana, Illinois 61801 U.S.A. R. Drew Griffith SALMONEUS’ THUNDER-MACHINE AGAIN (Apollod. Bibl. 1. 9. 7) In a recent issue of this journal R. Scott Smith and Stephen M. Trzaskoma (2005, 352) argue convincingly that the myth of Salmoneus “is ultimately about [his] inven- tion of … one kind of bronteîon, or thunder-machine, which may have its origins in ritual but which in its most familiar form was known from the theater”. Bringing this insight to bear on Apollodorus, they propose to emend his account of Salmoneus’ act as follows (Bibl. 1. 9. 7): κaì búrsav mèn e¬xhmménav [MS e¬xhramménav] e¬x açrmatov metà lebätwn calκøn súrwn e¢lege brontân. They further add (p. 354) that the mytho- grapher “himself may not have fully understood what lay behind the tradition […] he would have been left guessing, as many modern commentators have been, at how hides, pots, and a chariot can make thunder, and dragging is a natural supposition”. It is the purpose of the present note to point out that there is a very easy way in which the desired sound-effect could be achieved by dragging, well called the implement (sκeûov) of an inventive craftsman (sofòv mhcaniκóv) as Eustathius dubs Salmoneus (Od. 11. 236 [pp. 411. 12–15 Stallbaum]). This being so, it would be an unfortunate case of Besserwisserei to attribute Apollodorus’ use of the verb súrein to mere supposition rather than knowledge. Philologus 152 (2008) 1 143 Philologus 152 2008 1 143–145