The goddess Hērā refers here at I.14.302 to the cosmic river Ōkeanos as the ‘genesis of the gods’ (θεῶν γένεσιν). This reference is a continuation of the earlier reference at I.14.246 to Ōkeanos as a god ‘who has been fashioned as genesis for all’ (ὅς περ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται). Supplementing my comment on I.14.245–246–246a. I now offer further comment on those verses in the context of the narrative as it continues here at I.14.301–302. What follows is an epitome of what I have to say in HC 2§§156–157. I start with I.14.246, where the immediate point is this: Ōkeanos is a primal ancestor of the gods Zeus and Hērā. At I.14.246a, this theme is developed further: Ōkeanos is a primal force that ultimately generated humans as well as gods, and this force pervades the earth. Such a theme is actually implicit already at I.14.246, even without the explicit amplification of I.14.246a: the adjective pantessi (πάντεσσι) ‘all’ at I.14.246 implies that Ōkeanos is the father of not only ‘all’ gods but also, by extension, ‘all’ men. There is a parallel idea in Homeric references to Zeus himself as the ‘father’ of gods and men, patēr andrōn te theōn te, as at I.01.544, and so on. Further, the noun genesis (γένεσις) in the same verse, I.14.246, which I translated above by using the English borrowing ‘genesis’, implies a depersonalized cosmic power that generates not only all gods and all men but also all things. The idea that Ōkeanos is the ‘genesis’ of all is ultimately not so much the expression of an interpersonal relationship, such as parenthood in the immediate narrative context, but of a depersonalized cosmic creation, a cosmogony. Thus the adjective pantessi (πάντεσσι) ‘all’ is in fact all-inclusive, even without I.14.246a. I should add that there is nothing non-Homeric about picturing the Ōkeanos simultaneously as an anthropomorphic father of gods and as a cosmic source for everything on earth. The cosmogonic themes of I.14.246-246a, less explicit as read by Aristarchus without 246a and more explicit as read by Crates with 246a, are in any case deeply rooted in the Homeric tradition. The more explicit Homeric readings of Crates reflect, more clearly than the corresponding readings of Aristarchus, an earlier phase in the evolution of the Homeric tradition. I propose that Crates derived “plus verses” like I.14.246a from a “Homerus Auctus,” on which I have this to say at HC 2§178: “a verse like [I.14.246a], stemming from a Homerus Auctus as edited by Crates in Pergamon, need not be dismissed as an interpolation from Homeric editions that had been contaminated, as it were, by Orphic traditions. The Homerus Auctus need not be viewed as an editorial conflation of incompatible texts but as a preedited corpus of undifferentiated oral traditions that later became differentiated into distinct textual traditions that we recognize as Orphic, Hesiodic, Cyclic, and even Homeric.” On the term “Orphic” as I use it here, see the comment on I.14.245–246–246a above.