1397 Plutarch Lyc. 25.

1398 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 39. Plutarch Reg. Apophth. quoted in note e, p.

301. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “also a hearer,”

starting “Plutarch Ages. 13.”]

1399 See Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 209. In Bœotia also ἀνὴρ καὶ παῖς

συζυγέντες ὁμιλοῦσιν, Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 2. 12.

1400 Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Ælian V. H. III. 10.

1401 Athen. XIII. p. 601 E. p. 602 F. from Timæus, Heraclid. Pont. 3.

Heyne ad Apollod. III. 1. 2. Κρῆτες ἐρωτικώτατοι, together with the

Lacedæmonians and Bœotians, Plutarch Amator. 17. p. 37.

1402 Athen. XV. p. 782 E.

1403 Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 483. Hesychius in φιλήτωρ.

1404 Ephorus ubi sup. Compare Plutarch de Educ. 14.

1405 Ephorus and Heraclides Ponticus. Arms were in Crete, according to

Nicolaus Damascenus, the most honourable present that could be made.

Concerning the cup, see Hermonax ap. Athen. XI. p. 502 B.

1406 Ælian V. H. III. 9. comp. N. A. IV. 1.

1407 Aristot. Polit. II. 9. 6, 7.

1408 Aristoph. Acharn. 774. Theocrit. Id. XII. 28. and Schol.

1409 According to Plato and Cicero (Leg. I. p. 636 B. Tusc. Quæst. IV.

34. comp. Boeckh ad Leg. p. 106.) This practice _originated_ from

the gymnastic exercises; a supposition probably not true in this

general sense.

1410 Polit. II. 7. 5.—It is however true of Athens only, and not of the

Dorians, that the love of the male supplied the place of that of the

female sex.

1411 Welcker, Sappho von einem herrschenden vorurtheill befreit, p. 41.

Confederates in arms are called Ἀχίλλήιοι φίλοι in the beautiful

Fragment of Æolian lyric poetry, attributed to Theocritus, XXVIII.

34. Comp. Arrian. Peripl. Pont. p. 23.

1412 Cicero de Rep. IV. 4. _Lacedæmonii ipsi cum omnia concedunt in amore

juvenum præter stuprum, ienui sane muro dissæpiunt id quod

excipiunt: complexus enim concubitusque permittunt._

1413 Ælian V. H. III. 12. On account of this provision the Lacedæmonian

law is called ποίκιλος by Plato Sympos. p. 182. The purity of the

Lacedæmonian custom is also attested by Xenophon, the best authority

on Doric manners. Εἴ τις παιδὸς σώματος ὀρεγόμενος φανείη, αἴσχιστον

τοῦτο θεὶς (ὁ Λυκοῦργος) ἐποίησεν ἐν Δακεδαίμονι μηδὲν ἧττον ἐραστὰς

παιδικῶν ἀπέχεσθαι ἢ γονεῖς παίδων ἢ καὶ ἀδελφοὶ ἀδελφῶν εἰς

ἀφροδίσια ἀπέχονται, de Rep. Lac. 2. 13; and see Schneider’s note.

Plato however has a different opinion of it, Leg. I. p. 638. VIII.

p. 836. The Cretan fell into worse repute than the Lacedæmonian

custom, Plutarch de Educ. 14. Both however are praised as equally

innocent by Maximus Tyrius, Diss. X. p. 113. The suspicions thrown

upon it are perhaps to be entirely traced to the Attic comic poets;

thus Eupolis ap. Athen. I. p. 17 D. Hesych. et al. Lexicog. in

Κυσολάκων and λακωνίζειν. Comp. Suidas and Apostolius, XI. 73.

Λακωνικὸν τρόπον περαίνειν.

1414 On the subject of this last part generally, see Meiners’

Miscellaneous Philosophical Writings, vol. I. p. 61, and History of

the Female Sex, vol. I. p. 321. Herder’s Thoughts on the Philosophy

of History, Works, vol. V. p. 173. Since the first publication of

this work, the view of the above question taken in the text has been

approved by Jacobs, Miscellaneous Works, III. Leben und Kunst der

Alten, II. (1829) pp. 212, sqq.

1415 Lucian. Anach. 38. θῆλυς νεολαία Theocr. Idyl. XVIII. 24. Comp.

D’Orville ad Charit. p. 22. Alberti ad Hesych. in v.

1416 Plutarch, Lycurg. 16. I have written _house_ instead of _tribe_, as

above, b. III. ch. 10. § 2.

1417 The philosopher Archytas is mentioned as the inventor of a child’s

rattle, πλατάγη, Aristot. Polit. VIII. 6. 1. Apostol. XVI. 21.

1418 μίτυλλα, ἐσχατονήπια Hesychius.

1419 Plutarch, ubi sup.

1420 Concerning this expression see Plutarch, Ages. 1. Cleom. II. 37.

Λακωνικὴ ἀγωγὴ Polyb. I. 32, also Zonaras and Suidas. The

Λυκούργειος ἀγωγὴ was in later times supplanted by the Ἀχαϊκὴ

παιδεία, the object of which was utility, Plutarch, Philop. 16.

comp. Pausan. VII. 8. 3.

1421 According to the correct reading in Athen. VI. p. 271 E. These are

the same as οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀγωγῆς παῖδες: see above, p. 22. note p.

[Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “assuredly had not,”

starting “Χωρίτης.”] From the expression ὡς ἂν καὶ τὰ ἴδια

ἐκποιῶσιν, we may infer that the fathers paid the expenses of

education, which was observed in b. III. ch. 10, § 7.

1422 Xenoph. Hellen. V. 3. 9. τῶν ἐν τῆ πόλει καλῶν οὐκ ἄπειροι. The

δημοτικὴ ἀγωγὴ in Polyb. XXV. 8. 1. is an inferior degree.

1423 See in particular Plutarch, Lac. Apophthegm. p. 243.

1424 Any one who when a boy would not undergo hard labour, according to

Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 3. had no longer any share τῶν καλῶν; _i.e._ the

remaining education (τὰ καλὰ in Sparta; comp. Xenoph. Hellen. V. 4.

32, and above, note h [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“half-blood were admitted,” starting “Xenoph. Hellen.”]), and became

ἀδοκιμος in the town, not ὅμοιος. Plutarch, Inst. Lac. p. 252, says

too generally, that “any one who did not go through the education

lost the right of citizenship; which conversely might be obtained by

a stranger who submitted to it.”

1425 Plutarch, Ages. i.

1426 Plutarch, Lycurg. 16: comp. above, ch. 2. § 5.

1427 Photius in συνέφηβος, where for ἑξῆς δέκα read ἑκκαίδεκα. Schneider

Lexicon in σκύθραξ proposes συνεύνας; but all these were in the

Agelæ. More general names are derived from κόρος, _e.g._ κωραλίσκοι:

see Hesych. in v. From thence the piece of Epilycus, the scene of

which was laid in Sparta, had its title: see above, p. 288, note d,

[Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “particularly the

kings,” starting “Athen. IV.”] κυρσανίον, Aristoph. Lysistr. 983.

Schol. also Suidas, Photius in κυρσάνια, Hesych. in v. also in

κύρσιον, σκύρθακες, σκυρθάκια: comp. Hesych. in σκύθραξ et

σκυρθαλίας. Phot. in σκυρθάνια.

1428 In the second year after this period he was called Eiren, before it

Melleiren, Plutarch, Lycurg. 17. Etym. Mag. and Gloss. Herodot. in

εἴρην, Hesych. in ἰρίνες, ἴρανες, μελλίρην. Hesychius explains

ἴρανες by ἄρχοντες, διώκοντες; and εἰρηνάζει to mean κρατεῖ, and

this appears to be the original meaning of the word. Amompharetus,

Callicrates, &c., the ἰρένες in Herod. IX. 85. were certainly not

youths, but commanders, particularly Amompharetus, was lochagus of

the Pitanatan lochus. After that same period he was called

Proteires, Phot. p. 105. κατὰ πρωτεῖρας, Hesych. κατὰ πρωτῆρας. It

appears that in this composition εἴρης is the same word as εἴρην.

1429 Pausan. III. 14. 6, and see Boeckh Inscript.

1430 Siebelis ad Pausan. ubi sup. and b. III. ch. 11. § 3.

1431 Above, b. III. ch. 3. § 4.

1432 Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 5.

1433 Hesych. and Etym. Mag. in βουόα, where for ἀγλεῖ τις, read ἀγέλη

τις, Valcken. ad Adon. p. 274.

1434 Xen. Rep. Lac. 2. 11. Plutarch, Lycurg. 16, 17. Inst. Lac. p. 248.

1435 At Tarentum, the commander of the ile was called βειλαρμόστας, the

digamma being prefixed; see Hesych.

1436 See Hesych. in ἵππαρχος ἡνιοχαράτης, and according to Eustath. ad

Il. θ᾽. p. 727. 22. not merely the 300 were called cavalry, but all

the ἱππεῖς of the elders.

1437 Xen. Plutarch, ubi sup. uses the word agele instead of ile.

1438 Plutarch Lyc. 18.

1439 Xenoph. 2. 2. Plutarch. Hesych. According to Xen. 4. 6 the ἱππεῖς

were still under the superintendence of the παιδονόμος.

1440 Xenoph. ubi sup.

1441 Hesych. where the βουάγορ is erroneously called παῖς. See b. III.

ch. 7. § 8.

1442 Hesychius in ἄμπαιδες.

1443 Who were called κῶραι, πῶπαι, πάλλακες. For the first expression see

Maittaire, p. 156. κόρα amongst the Pythagoreans. Jambl. Pyth. XI.

56. For the second, see Hesychius in v. where read κόραι. For the

third see Etym. Mag. p. 649. 57.

1444 Theocrit. Idyll. XVIII. 23. comp. Pind. Fragm. Hyporch. 8. Boeckh,

Callim. Lav. Pall. 33.

1445 In Porphyr. Pyth. VIII. 61. p. 263. Goeller: comp. Jambl. Pyth. 30.

1446 σκότιοι: see Schol. in Eurip. Alcest. 989. This also was the time in

which the boys were taken away from home; see above, ch. 4. § 7; and

from the circumstance of their belonging to no agele, they were

called ἀπάγελοι, Hesych. in v.

1447 Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 483.

1448 Hesych. Ephorus ubi sup. and Nicol. Dam. mention indeed only a

παίδων ἀγέλη, but use παῖς in an extensive sense.

1449 Chishull, p. 134.

1450 Ephor. ubi sup. Heracl. Pont. 3. From this circumstance, according

to Hesychius, the ephebi in the agele were called ἀγελαστοὶ, for

which Meursius reads ἀγελαῖοι from ἀγελάζω, without any authority.

1451 See book III. ch. 8. § 2.

1452 Suidas.

1453 οἱ δέκα ἔτη ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἠσκηκότες, according to the correction

of Valcken. ad Ammon. I. 12.

1454 Eustath. ad II. θ᾽. p. 727. 18. ad Odyss. θ᾽. 1592, 57. Rom.

Ammonius in gerôn.

1455 τριακάτιοι. Eustath. and Ammon. ubi sup. Hesych. in v. οἱ ἔφηβοι καὶ

τὸ σύστημα αὐτῶν. comp. Intpp. vol. II. 1412. The observations of

Mazocchi, Tab. Heracl. p. 258. 87. are very absurd.

1456 Hence a particular oil vessel used in the gymnasia was called Δωρὶς

ὄλπα, Theocr. Idyll. II. 156. it was probably a very simple utensil,

since the Spartans, instead of the στλεγγὶς, used a bundle of reeds,

Schol. ad Plat. Charm. p. 90. Ruhnken. Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 253.

Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 430. remarks ingeniously that several

_vocabula musica_, _palæstrica et mititaria_, even in the common

Grecian dialect, had a Doric character, being particularly in use

amongst the Dorians.

1457 Dion. Chrysost. Orat. 37. 33. Φιλογυμναστοῦσι Λάκωνες. The same is

said in Plato Protag. p. 342. of the imitators of the Spartans, who

also (contrary to the customs of their original) were addicted to

the contest with the cæstus. Aristot. Polit. VIII. 3. 3. merely

says, that the discipline to which the Spartan youth were subjected

made them too brutal, θηριώδεις.

1458 Comp. what the Spartan in Plutarch. Lac. Apophthegm, p. 246. says

concerning the distinction between κρείσσων and καββαλικώτερος, a

better wrestler.

1459 Plutarch Lycurg. 19. reg. Apophthegm. p 125. Lac. Ap. p. 225. Seneca

de Benef. V. 3. Xenophon’s remarks in Rep. Lac. 4. 6. on the boxing

of the ἡβῶντες, do not apply to the gymnastic exercises.

1460 Plato, Laches, p. 183.

1461 Where it was without doubt connected with the military service, and

a display of valour in the practice of war.

1462 Athen. IX. p. 154 D. The Mantinean ὁπλομαχία will account for a

Mantinean being reported to have invented the ἐνόπλιος ὄρχησις,

Plutarch. Num. 13. There was also a peculiar Μαντινικὴ ὅπλισις.

1463 Corsini, Diss. Agon. p. 127.

1464 Thus, as is his usual practice, Hermippus gives a fictitious account

of the victory gained by the son of Chilon in the contest with the

cestus at Olympia. Diog. Laert. I. 3. 5.

1465 Pausan. V. 8. 3. It is however surprising that the πένταθλον παίδων

existed only in one Olympiad, viz. the 38th, when a Lacedæmonian

obtained the victory.

1466 See the Grammarians in the proverb ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα πηδᾷ.

1467 The Olympic conqueror, Philip of Croton, the friend of Dorieus the

Spartan, was considered the most beautiful of the Greeks, Herod. V.

47. Cicero de Invent. II. 1. says of the Crotoniats as follows:

“Quodam tempore Crotoniatæ multum omnibus corporis viribus et

dignitatibus antesteterunt, atque honestissimas ex gymnico certamine

victorias domum cum maxima laude retulerunt. Quum puerorum igitur

_formas et corpora_ magno hic (Zeuxis) opere miraretur: horum,

inquiunt illi, sorores sunt apud nos virgines.” This is doubtless a

correct description of the flourishing period of the youth of

Croton: but it falls much before the time of Zeuxis.

1468 Strab. VI. p. 262. comp. Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenshaft, book

III. ch. 2.

1469 Diagoras, his sons Damagetus, Acesilaus, Dorieus, and grandsons

Eucles and Peisirrhodus; perhaps also Hyllus, see Boeckh Expl. Pind.

Olymp. VII. p. 165.

1470 Æginetica, p. 141. see also Menand. de Encom. III. 1. p. 97. ed.

Heeren.

1471 Boeckh Expl. Pind. Pyth. IV. p. 268. Pyth. V. p. 287. to which add

Hesych. in ἐλαία.

1472 Boeckh Expl. Pind. Olymp. IV. p. 143.

1473 Olymp. XII. 20. comp. Boeckh Expl. p. 210.

1474 The Spartans were particularly fond of the mode of wrestling called

κλιμακίζειν: see the verses of Plato the comic poet quoted above, p.

280, note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ornament

of a man,” starting “Plato Comicus Ap. Aspas.”] comp. Plut. Lac.

Apophthegm. p. 241. The ἀπὸ τραχήλον γυμνάζεσθαι, Xen. Rep. Lac. 5.

9. appears to have required particular strength of neck. The Argives

were dexterous ἑδροστρόφοι (throwers of crossbuttocks), Theocr.

Idyll. XXV. 109.

1475 See b. I. ch. 4. § 3.

1476 Above, ch. 4. § 7.

1477 Above, § 3.

1478 See b. III. ch. 3. § 4.

1479 Xenoph. Anab. IV. 6. 14.

1480 Heracl. Pont. 2. Xen. Rep. Lac. 2, 6. Justin. III. 3. 6. 7 comp.

Cicero apud Nonium in _clepere_. Gellius N.A. XI. 18. &c. Plutarch

Lycurg. 17. does not state the reason accurately, comp. Inst. Lac.

p. 249. Lac. Apophthegm, p. 239. The Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 225.

ed. Ruhnken. 450. ed. Bekker. confound the cryptia with this

institution.

1481 ὅσα μὴ κωλύει νόμος. Xenoph. Anab. ubi. sup. comp. De Rep. Lac. 2.

6. Cicero’s assertion de Rep. III. 9. _Cretes latrocinari honestum

putant_ should also be taken in a limited sense; comp. however

Polyb. VI. 46. 1.

1482 B. II. ch. 9. § 6. Concerning the διαμαστίγωσις, comp. Plutarch

Lycurg. 18. Inst. Lac. p. 254. Athen. VIII. p. 350 C. Lucian.

Icarom. 16. Musonius apud Stob. Serm. 92. p. 307. Schol. ad Plat.

Leg. I. p. 224. Ruhnken. p. 450. Bekker. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. V. 27.

Seneca de prov. IV. To this add the passages in Manso I. 2. p. 183.

Creuzer Init. Philos. Plat. II. p. 166. A βωμονίκης occurs in a

Lacedæmonian inscription, Boeckh, No. 1364. I am not yet convinced

of the truth of Thiersch’s conjecture, that the bronze statute of

the youth at Berlin is of this character. I should rather take it to

represent a conqueror in the pancration τῶν παίδων, in the attitude

of returning thanks to Jupiter for his victory.

1483 Pausan. III. 14. 8. comp. II. 2. Plat. Leg. I. p. 633. Cic. Quæst.

Tusc. 5-27. Lucian. Anach. 38. Plutarch Lac. Apophthegm. p. 239.

Lacæn. p. 258. what Plato terms γυμνοπαιδιὰς, are in general

exercises of naked boys in the heat of summer, comp. Schol. ad loc.

and Suidas in Λυκοῦργος. The ἡβῶντες according to Xen. Rep. Lac. 4.

4. also fought with the selected three hundred wherever they

encountered them.

1484 Ephor. apud Strab. X. p. 483. Heracl. Pont. 3.

1485 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 9. The Lacedæmonian ἀγωγὴ was in later times

considered as a gymnastic education. Thus Phocion had his son

brought up in the Lacedæmonian manner, and Alcibiades was at least

nursed by Amycla, Plutarch Lycurg. 16. Schol. Plat. I. p. 77.

Ruhnken.

1486 Herod. IX. 72. A Lacedæmonian strikingly resembled Hector, _i.e._

the ideal of heroic excellence, according to Plutarch Arat. 3.

1487 Nicol. Damasc.

1488 Plutarch Lycurg. 14. Lac. Apophthegm. p. 223. comp. Manso I. 2. p.

162. Respecting the exercise of running ἐνδριώνας, Welcker ad Alcm.

p. 10 sq. The exercises, besides the gymnasia, are mentioned by a

poet in Cic. Quæst. Tusc. II. 15. and referred to also in Aristoph.

Lys. 117.

1489 Plato Theæt. p 162, 169. Plutarch Lycurg. 14. only says, that they

witnessed the procession and dances of the young men.

1490 In Athen. XII. p. 550 D. comp. Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7.

1491 According to Isocr. Panath. p. 544. comp. Perizonius ad Ælian. V. H.

XII. 50. That they learnt to read, is asserted by Plutarch Lycurg.

16. Inst. Lac. p. 247. but contradicted by a Soph. anon. in Orelli

Opp. Mor. II. p. 214. The ancient simplicity of their manners is

evident from the custom of cutting a staff (σκυτάλη) in pieces, and

dividing the fragments, to be preserved as memorials of a contract

entered into, Photius in σκυτάλη, and Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1284.

from Dioscorides περὶ νομιμων. Concerning the schools of learning in

Crete, see Heracl. Pont. 3. Ephor. apud Strab. X. p. 482. The most

ancient Grecian letters appear also to have been called Doric,

Suidas in Κόριννος.

1492 Ælian. V. H. II. 39. The same practice was enjoined by the laws of

Lycurgus, see book I. ch. 7. § 3.

1493 Hence also δωρίζειν, _to sing in the Doric style_, Hesychius. A

cithara strung so as to suit that measure was called a Δωρία

φόρμιγξ. Pindar Olymp. I. 17. who also calls the rhythm which suited

the Doric mode, Δώριον πέδιλον, Olymp. III. 5. and the whole

together Δωρία κέλευθος ὕμνων, Fragm. Incert. 98.

1494 Plat. Lach. p. 188 D.

1495 Some endeavoured to explain this name by supposing that Thamyris was

the inventor, who had contended with the Muses at _Dorium_, Clem.

Alex. Strom. I. p. 307. comp. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. vol. I. p. 301.

1496 Vol. I. p. 351. note g. It was on this that Glaucus ap. Plutarch

Music. 4. probably grounded his proof of the date of Terpander.

1497 According to the important testimony of Sosibius the Laconian, the

musical contests at the Carnea were first instituted in Olymp. 26.,

and according to the catalogue of Hellanicus, Terpander was the

first who gained the prize, Athen. XIV. p. 635. The Parian Marble

ep. 35, places his new regulation of music at Sparta in Olymp. 33.

4. The other statements on the time of Terpander are far inferior to

these in authority.

1498 Thus Pindar (ap. Athen. p. 635 D. fragm. Scol. 5. Boeckh.) says,

that Terpander first heard at Lydian banquets the strings of the

lyre sound _in opposition to_ the high πηκτίς.

1499 For the whole of this, see Boeckh de Metric. Pindar. p. 238. and

particularly Heraclid. Pont. ap. Athen. XIV. p. 624 D.

1500 See Athenæus, p. 632. from Heraclides Ponticus.

1501 The supposed Plutarch, in the learned and excellent Essay on music,

c. 9.

1502 See Aristotle and Ælius Dionysius in Eustathius p. 741. 15.

Heraclid. Pont. 2. Plutarch de Sera Num. Vind. 13. Hesychius in μετὰ

Λέσβιον ᾠδὸν, Apostolius XII. 70. &c. According to Plutarch Mus. 6,

the last of that school who appeared at the Carnea was Pericleitus,

who lived before Hipponax. If so, Ælius Dionysius is wrong in

mentioning Euænitides and Aristocleides, the latter of whom was

certainly of a later date. Phrynis is altogether out of the

question.

1503 Diod. fragm. II. p. 639. Plutarch Music. 42. Schol. Od. γ᾽. 267. ed.

Buttman. Tzetzes Chil. I. 16. Marm. Par. ep. 35.

1504 Although he is said to have been first fined by the ephors on

account of the number of the strings, Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 251.

but the account is very confused. Yet Athenæus XIV. p. 628 D., when

he says that the Spartans saved music _three times_, seems to allude

to it.

1505 For the statements of Schol. Od. γ᾽. 267. and Eustathius ad 1.

concerning an ancient Lacedæmonian named Demodocus, of Sipias a

Dorian, of Abaris a Lacedæmonian, and of Probolus a Spartan, at the

time of the migration of the Heraclidæ, are hardly worthy of the

name of mythical.

1506 B. II. ch. 1. § 5.

1507 Concerning whom see Boeckh Expl. Pind. Ol. X. p. 197.

1508 Polymnestus wrote a poem to Thaletas for the Lacedæmonians (Paus. I.

14. 3.), probably after his death, and therefore he is

unquestionably of a later date than Thaletas; he is called the

contemporary of Sacadas, who flourished about the 48th Olympiad (588

B.C.), but was probably somewhat earlier. According to Plutarch Mus.

5. he was mentioned by _Alcman_, which does not agree, if this poet

lived in Olymp. 27 (672 B.C.) where he is generally placed: but the

other date of the ancient chronologists for Alcman, viz. Olymp. 42

(612 B.C.), is doubtless more correct.

1509 Glaucus ap. Plutarch. Mus. 10.

1510 Sosibius ap. Athen. XV. p. 678 B. also mentions songs of Thaletas at

this festival, comp. Suidas in Θαλήτας. It seems however probable

that the introduction here mentioned did not take place before the

battle of Thyræa, about Olymp. 58. or 546 B.C., since much of the

musical solemnities of the gymnopædia referred to this action,

Athen. ubi sup. comp. Etymol. Mag. in γυμνοπαιδία, if we should

there read with Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part 2. p. 211. Θυραίαν for

Πύλαιαν, on which however there is some doubt. See vol. I. p. 309,

note m.

1511 Plutarch Agis 10. Lac. Apophth. p. 205.

1512 According to Plutarch Agis 10. Inst. Lac. p. 251, and Cicero de Leg.

II. 15. compare Dio Chrys. Or. XXXII. p. 382 B. ed. Reisk.

1513 Artemon ap. Athen. XIV. p. 636 E.

1514 III. 12. 8.

1515 Etymol. Mag. in σκιάς.

1516 Ap. Boeth. de Musica ad calc. Arati. Oxon. p. 66. Also in Casaubon

on Athen. VIII. p. 613. (vol. IV. p. 611. Schweigh.), Scaliger on

Manilius, Bulliald on Theon, Leopardus in his Observationes Criticæ,

Gronovius Præf. ad Thes, Ant. Græc. vol. V. from a Cambridge MS.,

Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 128, and with a collation of several Oxford

manuscripts (Cleaver’s) Decretum Lacedæmoniorum contra Timotheum

Milesium, Oxonii 1777; lastly, Payne Knight, Essay on the Greek

Alphabet, sect. 7. and Porson, Tracts, p. 145. Mus. Crit. vol. I. p.

506.

1517 The following recension of the decree is made after the manuscripts,

without any arbitrary introduction of laconisms; while the short

vowels are every where retained, and even the singular Ι for Υ.

Επειδε ὁ Τιμοθεορ ὁ Μιλησιορ παργινομενορ εν ταν ἁμετεραν πολιν ταν

παλαιαν μοαν ατιμασδε, και ταν δια ταν ἑπτα χορδαν κιταριτιν

αποστρεφομενορ πολιφονιαν εισαγον λιμαινεται ταρ ακοαρ τον νεον δια

τε ταρ πολιχορδιαρ και ταρ καινοτατορ το μελεορ, αγεννε και ποικιλαν

αντι ἁπλοαρ και τεταμεναρ αμφιεννιται ταν μοαν, επι χροματορ

σινισταμενορ ταν το μελεορ διασκειαν αντι ταρ εναρμονιο ποτταν

αντιστροφον αμοιβαν; παρακλετεις δε και εττον αγονα ταρ Ελεισινιαρ

Δαματρορ απρεπε διεσκειασατο ταν τω μιτω διασκειαν ταν γαρ Σεμελαρ

οδινα ουκ ενὀικα τορ νεορ διδακκε δεδοκται αρ περι τουτοιν τορ

βασιλεαρ και τορ εφορορ μεμψατται Τιμοθεον, επαναγκαται δε και ταν

ἑνδεκα χορδαν εκταμεν ταρ περιτταρ ὑπολιπομενον ταρ ἑπτα; ὁπορ

ἑκαστορ το ταρ πολιορ βαρορ ὁρον ευλαβεται ετταν Σπαρταν επιφερεν τι

τον με καλον ετον με ποτε ταραττιται κλεορ αγονον (according to

Porson, ἢ τῶν μὴ ποτὶ τᾶρ ἀρετᾶρ κλέορ ἀγόντων.).

1518 B. II. ch. 10. § 4.

1519 In common Greek, ἐπὶ χρώματος συνιστάμενος τὴν τοῦ μέλεος διασκευὴν

ἀντὶ τῆς ἐναρμονίου πρὸς τὴν ἀντίστροφον ἀμοιβήν.

1520 Thus, for example, we have ετων from ἔθος, the Laconian form of

which was ΒΕΣΟΡ, Valcken. ad Theocrit. p. 282.

1521 For instance, ΜΟΥΣΩ has been written for μιτω (see Valckenær. p.

379.), without a shadow of probability; for κιταριτιν ΚΙΣΑΡΙΞΙΝ, for

αμφιεννιται ΑΜΠΕΝΝΥΤΑΙ (from ἀμπέσαι, ἀμφιέσαι Hesychius), or

ΑΜΠΙΓΕΝΝΥΤΑΙ (from βέστον, Etym. M. p. 193. 45. for ἔσθος Aristoph.

Lys. 1090.); for ἐπαναγκάται ΕΠΑΝΑΓΚΑΑΙ from ποιηἁι, &c. &c.

1522 That it was a common practice to forge Spartan inscriptions is

remarked by Valekenær. p. 257. The genuineness of _this_ decree was

first questioned by Villebrun ad. Athen. VIII. p. 352. and Heinrich

Epimenides, p. 175.

1523 Plat. Leg. II. p. 660. cf. III. p. 680.

1524 Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 121.

1525 A contemporary of Timotheus, Plutarch Mus. 21. Athen. VIII. p. 352

B.

1526 Plutarch Mus. 37.

1527 Boeckh Inscript. No. 1108. Plutarch Mus. 32. ascribes a moral

judgment of music particularly to the Lacedæmonians, Mantineans, and

Pelleneans.

1528 Max. Tyr. 4. p. 46. 21. p. 216. ed. Davis. cf. Cic. de Leg. II. 15.

1529 As was always the case in Arcadia, according to Polybius IV. 20. 7.

1530 Ap. Demosth. in Mid. p. 15. compare Buttmann’s Commentary, p. 35.

1531 Sosibius ap. Athen. p. 678 B.

1532 Pausan. III. 11. 7.

1533 Xen. Rep. Lac. IX. 5. ἐν χοροῖς εἰς τὰς ἐπονειδίστους χώρας

ἀπελαύνεται.

1534 See the apophthegm of Damonides, Plutarch Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac.

Apophth. p. 203. where however χοραγὸς is put instead of χοροποιὸς,

which magistrate had the regulation of the choruses in general (Xen.

Ages. 2. 17. Plutarch ubi sup. p. 173. but in Herodotus VI. 67.

there is no reason to introduce him on conjecture); and the saying

of Agesilaus, Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 173 (where however it is

erroneously stated that Agesilaus was appointed king when a boy).

The author of the Agesilaus attributed to Xenophon states, that

Agesilaus, before the capture of Peiræum, returned home, though

lame, in order to be conducted to his place by the choropœus at the

pæan of the Hyacinthia; but he clearly confounds him with the

Amycleans.

1535 Above, page 262, note g, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote

to “corresponding evolutions,” starting “For this reason.”] where I

preferred the explanation of Hesychius to that of Suidas.

1536 Aristot. Polit. VIII. 6. 6.

1537 Plato Leg. II. p. 666.

1538 Pollux IX. 5. 41.

1539 Ap. Athen. XIV. p. 628 F. Schweighæuser asks who this poet Socrates

was? I believe the passage is from the Προοίμιον, or Hymn to Apollo,

which the philosopher composed when in prison.

1540 The cicada was considered as a musical animal, and sacred to Apollo.

1541 Ib. XIV. p. 633 A.

1542 Aristot. Polit. VIII. 5. and on the other hand see Chamæleon ap.

Athen. IV. p. 184 D.

1543 Above, ch. 2. § 3. ch. 4. § 1. Hesychius φουλίδερ, παρθένων χορὸς,

Δωριεῖς.

1544 Boeckh ad Pindar. fragm. p. 598.

1545 Plutarch Lycurg. 21. de amore sui 15. Lac. Inst. p. 251. Schol.

Plat. Leg. I. p. 223. Ruhnken. p. 449. Bekker Zenobius, Apostolius,

&c. They are said to have been instituted by Tyrtæus (Pollux IV. 15.

106), to whom Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 162. 21. ascribes generally a

large share in the education of youth at Sparta. It is from these of

the Spartans that Plato copies his great choruses. Leg. II. p. 664

sqq.

1546 B. II. ch. 8. § 11, 13.

1547 Concerning these songs, see Athenæus IV. p. 181 B. where it is

stated that tumbling (κυβιστᾶν) was a national custom in Crete, and

in general Aristoxenus ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 B.

1548 Above, ch. 4. § 1. Eustathius ubi sup. relates that Theseus danced

thus with the seven youths and maidens to Cnosus. Compare Lobeck ad

Soph. Aj. 698. Κνώσια ὀρχήματα.

1549 Lucian de Saltat. 12. See Meursius Orchestra, tom. V. p. 237.

1550 Ephorus ap. Strab. N. p. 481 D.

1551 Herod. VI. 129. compare Wesseling’s note.

1552 Athenæus I. p. 22 D.

1553 Pausan. IV. 33. 3.

1554 Herod. III. 131.

1555 Boeckh ad Pindar, fragm. inc. 88. Concerning Hierax, see below § 7.

Ariston is also mentioned as an ancient flute-player of Argos, in an

epigram of Simonides or Bacchylides, Brunck’s Analect. vol. I. p.

141. Gaisford’s Poet. Min. vol. I. p. 383. Neue Bacchyl. fragm. 61.

1556 Pausan. IV. 27. 4.

1557 Pausan. VI. 14. 5.

1558 See the ancient Epigram in Athenæus XIV. p. 629.

1559 B. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1560 Athen. V. p. 181 C.

1561 The ἰαμβίζειν is also elsewhere connected with this worship; compare

Max. Tyr. Diss. XXI. p. 216. Davis, and the general expression

σικελίζειν for ὀρχεῖσθαι, Theophrast. ap. Athen. I. p. 22 C. And

Archilochus perhaps belonged to the colony in which the priestess

Cleobœa brought the mystical rites of Demeter from Paros to Thasos.

1562 Particularly of Artemis Χιτωνέα, as appears from Athenæus p. 629 E.

who was also originally Ionic, b. II. ch. 9. § 5.

1563 Athen. IV. p. 103.

1564 On which see Athen. p. 624 B.

1565 Pausan. II. 21. 3. Comp. Schol. Soph. Aj. 14. Eurip. Phœn. 1386.

Athene was evidently the patron of the trumpeters, under the name

Σάλπιγξ, at Argos (an allusion to which see in Æsch. Eum. 556. Soph.

Aj. 17.), because she was tutelar deity of the flute-players; and

this was also the case at Sparta. For it is plain from Polyænus I.

10. that the διαβατήρια were offered to Athene on the boundaries (b.

III. ch. 12. § 5.) only because she presided over the flutes, by

which the army was conducted.

1566 Athen. XII. p. 517 A. de XIV. p. 627 D. Plutarch Mus. 26.

1567 Polyb. IV. 20. 6. Athen. XIV. 626. Plutarch ubi sup. Lucian de

Saltat. 10. Dio Chrysost. Or. XXXII. p. 380. Reisk. Gell. N. A. I.

11. Eustath. ad Il. ψ᾽. p. 1320. 3. ed. Rom.

1568 Fragm. 14. ed. Welcker. Pausanias III. 17. 5. mentions flute, lyre,

and cithara together. The fabulous narration of Polyænus appears to

me to be historically refuted by Alcman, as also by that remarked in

b. II. ch. 8. § 11.

1569 Polyb. IV. 20. 6. Compare Strabo X. p. 483 B.

1570 B. III. ch. 2. § 4. ch. 12. § 5, 10.

1571 V. 70. See Lucian de Saltat. 10.

1572 The Ἀδώνιον was one kind of the ἐπιβατήρια, according to Hesyehius,

whose gloss ὅπερ ὕστερον παρὰ Λεσβίοις ὠνομάσθη, as well as the name

itself, is by no means clear. Ἐνόπλια μέλη ἐμβατήρια in Athenæus

XIV. p. 630 F. Valckenaer ad Theocrit. Adon. p. 283. is also of

opinion that the σαρσίτειος χορὸς to the flute was an ἐμβατήριον

(from θαρρεῖν); but an ἐμβατήριον was not a chorus.

1573 Plutarch de Mus. 26. Lycurg. 22. where however the Καστόρειον μέλος

of the flute-players is distinguished from the ἐμβατήριος παιᾶν, in

which the king joined (on the other hand Polyænus I. 10. ἐμβατήριον

ἐνδίδωσιν αὐλὸς); Καστόρειον generally being used for the music of

instruments, and ἐμβατήριον the song itself.

1574 Pollux IV. 10. 78.

_ 1575 Messeniacum metrum seu embaterium_, Victorinus, p. 2522. ed.

Putsch. Comp. Hephæst. pag. 25. 46, 1. ed. Gaisford. Schol. Eurip.

Hec. 59. and Demetrius Triclinius ad Soph. Aj. 134. Cic. Quæst.

Tusc. II. 16.

1576 Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 251. Valer. Maxim. II. 6. 2.

1577 Pindar. Pyth. II. 69. Hermann de Dial. Pind. p. 19, 20. Boeckh de

Metr. Pind. p. 276. Expl. Pyth. II. p. 249.

1578 Isthm. I. 16.

1579 B. II. ch. 10. § 8. A third supposition is that of the Scholiast to

Pindar, Pyth. II. 127, that the νόμος took its name from the

Dioscuri, as being the inventors of the Pyrrhic dance (comp. Plat.

Leg. VII. p. 795. Lucian de Saltat. 10.) But in the Μῶσαι of

Epicharmus (ap. Schol. Pind. et Athen. p. 184 F.) it was only stated

that Minerva played the flute for the Dioscuri to the ἐνόπλιος νόμος

(_i.e._ the Pyrrhic), and hence that the flute was used as a

military instrument at Sparta; but not a word of the Καστόρειος

νόμος.

1580 As, for instance, ἄγετ᾽ ὦ Σπάρτας εὐάνδρου in Dion Chrysost. Orat.

II. p. 31 A. ed. Reisk.; although, according to Hephæstion, the

_laconicum metrum_ was a _tetrameter catalecticus in syllabam_, with

a spondaic ending; and according to M. Victorinus ubi sup. a

_trimeter catalecticus in syllabam_.

1581 B. III. ch. 12. § 4.

1582 This very precise and credible account is given by Philochorus ap.

Athen. p. 630. Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 212. ed. Reisk. states, that

it was sung at the king’s tent before the battle. Compare Manso’s

Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 171. Conrad Schneider in the Studien,

vol. IV. p. 18. Franck’s Tyrtæus, p. 133.

1583 Hesych. in ἰβυκτήρ. Write ἰβυκτήρ. ἦν παρὰ Κρησὶν Ἴβυκος ἐμβατήριον

ποιησάμενος, ὅπερ ὁ ἄδων οὕτω ἐκαλεῖτο.

1584 Book III. ch. 12. § 10.

1585 Ib. notes.

1586 Plato Leg. VII. p. 795. Aristoxenus ap. Athen. p. 630 E. Strab. X.

p. 467. Nicol. Damasc. Κρῆτες. Lucian de Saltat. 8. Schol. Pindar.

Pyth. II. 127. Hesychius in πυῤῥιχίζειν. Pollux IV. 14. 99. derives

two ἔνοπλοι ὀρχήσεις from Crete, the Pyrrhic and the Telesias, comp.

Athen. p. 630 A; and from Athen. p. 629 C. it appears that there

were there also the similar dances of ὀρσίτης and ἐπικρηνίδιος.

1587 See Hoeck’s Kreta, vol. I. p. 212.

1588 Above, p. 342. note r. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“Spartan army,” starting “B. II. ch. 10.”]

1589 Schol. Pind. ubi sup.

1590 Leg. VII. p. 815.

1591 Athen. p. 631 A. Comp. Meursius Orchestra Op. vol. V. p. 242. Manso,

Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 175.

1592 As is frequently seen on vases.

1593 Plutarch. Music. 26. Comp. Pollux IV. 10. 79.

1594 Plutarch ubi sup.

1595 That is, if the emendation of Salmasius, ἱεράκιον for θεράκιον, in

Pollux IV. 10. 78, is adopted.

1596 Athen. p. 678 B. and compare p. 631 B. p. 632 C. Concerning the

gymnopædia in general, see Meurs. Orchest. p. 202. and the passages

cited by Creuzer Comment. Herod. vol. I, p. 230.

1597 πόῤῥω παῖδες πόδα μετάβατε, καὶ κωμάξατε βέλτιον, Lucian de Salt.

10. 11.

1598 Athen. p. 14 D. from Dicæarchus and Hippasus. At Argos the choruses

of boys were called Βαλλαχράδαι. Plutarch Quæst. Græc. 51. p. 405.

1599 Pollux IV. 14. 102.

1600 Lysist. 82. The ἀναλακτίζειν of the Spartan women when dancing is

mentioned in Oribasius Med. p. 121. ed. Mosq.; the ἐκλακτίσματα, as

a woman’s dance in general is mentioned by Pollux ubi sup.

1601 Cited by Pollux, χίλιά ποκα βιβάντι (rather βιβάτι) πλεῖστα δὴ τῶν

πή ποκα, which becomes a trimeter iambic by the omission of the

first ποκα.

1602 Pollux IV. 4. 101. Hesychius in v. See Meurs. Orchest. under

διποδία, διαποδισμὸς ποδίκρα.

1603 Perhaps it was connected with the trochaic dipodia, which appears to

have been the common metre in these choral songs, though mixed with

cretics, spondees, dactylic, and logaœdic verses.

1604 Aristoph. Lysist. ad fin.

1605 Some rites of Bacchus were mixed with the worship of the Caryatan

Artemis, as may be seen from Servius ad Virg. Eclog. VIII. 30; hence

the dances of this goddess were of a wild and violent character.

Accordingly, Praxiteles (Pliny, H. N. XXXVI. 4.) made a joint

composition of Caryatides and Thyades; and Pratinas (Athen. X. p.

392.) wrote a play called Δύμαιναι ἢ Καρυάτιδες, the former of whom,

also called Δύσμαιναι, occur as Bacchantes. The form Δύσμαιναι is

defended against Toup and Meineke (Euphorion. fragm. 42. p. 93.) by

Philargyr. ad Virg. Georg. II. 487. who translates the name by

_furiosæ Bacchæ_. The Caryatides, who danced with uplifted hands,

(Lynceus ap. Athen. VI. p. 241 D.) may be recognised in many reliefs

as young women with their garments girt up and lightly clad.

1606 B. II. ch. 8. § 14.

1607 Pollux IV. 14. 104. where for βαρύλλικα write with Schneider (in v.)

βρυάλλιχα.

1608 Hesychius has βύλλιχαι χοροὶ τινες ὀρχηστῶν παρὰ Λάκωσιν; then

βρυαλίκται ὀρχησταὶ from Ibycus and Stesichorus; next βρυδάλιχα (but

the order of the letters requires ΒΡΥΑΛΛΙΧΑ), in the sense of

frightful female masks, from Rhinthon; and βρυδαλίχας (ΒΡΥΑΛΛΙΧΑΣ)

τὰς μαχλάδας, Λάκωνες; and, lastly, βρυλλοχισταὶ, persons who sang

hymns in hideous female masks. The original forms appear to have

been βρυάλλιχα for the _dance_, βρυαλλίχα for the _mask_, and

βρυαλλίκτης (like δεικηλίκτης) for the _dancer_.

1609 Vol. I. p. 377, note s.

1610 Pollux IV. 14. 104. ἦν δὲ τινα καὶ Λακωνικὰ ὀρχήματα. δειμαλέα:

Σειληνοὶ δ᾽ ἦσαν καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς Σάτυροι ὑπότροχα ὀρχούμενοι. καὶ

ἴθυμβοι ἐπὶ Διονύσῳ. καὶ καρυατίδες ἐπὶ Ἀρτέμιδι. καὶ βρυάλλιχα τὸ

μὲν εὕρημα Βρυαλλίχον. προσωρχοῦντο δὲ γυναῖκες Ἀπόλλωνι καὶ

Ἀρτέμιδι. οἱ δὲ ὑπογύπωνες γερόντων ὑπὸ βακτηρίοις τὴν μίμησιν

εἶχον. οἱ δὲ γύπωνες ξυλίνων κώλων ἐπιβαίνοντες ὠρχοῦντο, διαφανῆ

ταραντινίδια ἀμπεχόμενοι. καὶ μῆνες Χαρίνων μὲν ὄρχημα, ἐπώνυμον δ᾽

ἦν τοῦ εὑρόντος αὐλητοῦ. τυρβασία δὲ ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ ὄρχημα τὸ

διθυραμβικόν. μιμηλικὴν δἐ ἐκάλουν δι᾽ ἧς ἐμιμοῦντο τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ

κλοπῇ τῶν ἑώλων μερῶν ἁλισκομένους. λαμπροτέρα δὲ ἦν ἣν ὠρχοῦντο

γυμνοὶ σὺν αἰσχρολογίᾳ. In this passage there is nothing altered

except βρυάλλιχα and Βρυαλλίχου for βαρύλλιχα and Βαρυλλίχου,

λαμπροτέρα δὲ ἦν ἣν for λαμπροτέραν δὲ ἣν; and μιμηλικὴν for

μιμητικὴν, as a friend of the author’s has proposed (G. A. Schoell,

de origine Græci dramatis, p. 97.), which gives the same sense

δεικηλιστικὴν, which I had formerly proposed, as μιμηλοὶ and

δεικηλισταὶ were synonyms, according to Suidas in Σωσίβιος.

1611 γένος οὐτιδανῶν Σατύρων καὶ ἀμηχανοεργῶν, Hesiod. ap. Strab. X. p.

471. The reading δειμαλέα is not however at all certain; and still

less the word μῆνες, a little lower.

1612 On the _Charinus_ or _Gracioso_, see below, ch. 7. § 3; and on the

Argolian τύρβη, b. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1613 Although the Spartans also called regular actors δεικηλίκται,

Plutarch Agesil. 21. Lac. Apophth. p. 185. Apostolius XV. 39. Schol.

Il. χ᾽. 391.

1614 δίκηλον according to Hesychius ἀνδρίας, ζῴδιον παρὰ Λάκωσιν perhaps

refers to the fact mentioned in vol. I. p. 66, note q.

1615 δεικηλισταὶ σκευοποιοὶ καὶ μιμηταὶ, Sosibius ap. Athen. XIV. p. 621

D. Hesychius in δεικηλισταὶ. cf. interprett. They were μιμολόγοι

according to Hesychius in δίκηλον, κωμικοὶ according to Eustathius

p. 884. 23, σκωπτικοὶ according to Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 746. The

Laconic form is δεικηλίκτας.

1616 Ap. Athen. Eustath. ubi sup. Suidas and Phavorinus in δικηλιστῶν,

and Suidas in Σωσίβιος. On the Lacedæmonian mimicry see also

Boettiger Quat. ætat. reiscenicæ, p. 8.

1617 See Plutarch Lycurg. I. καὶ φέρουσι κλέπτοντες, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τοὺς

κήπους βαδίζοντες (robbers of gardens), οἱ δ᾽ εἰς τὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν

συσσίτια παρεισρέοντες (the thieves of the ἐωλομερῆ of Pollux cited

in p. 347, note b.) [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“grammarian,” starting “Pollux IV.”]

1618 B. III. ch. 3. § 3; and see Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 279. Eq. 632.

1619 Diomed. 3. p. 483. ed Putsch. Servius ad Virg. Ecl. I. Donatus Vit.

Virg. p. 84. sq. Diomedes also connects the Sicilian bucoliasms with

rites of Ἄρτεμις Λύη.

1620 Ἐν Ἁλκυόνι καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσεῖ ναυαγῷ, Athen. XIV. p. 619 A. Comp.

Hesych. et Etym. M. in v.

1621 Ælian. V.H. X. 18.

1622 Tityrus, according to Servius ad Ecl. I. i. was _aries major, qui

gregem anteire consueverit, lingua Laconia_; a goat, according to

Schol. Theocrit. III. 2. Photius in v. Τίτυρος is the Doric form of

σίσυρος, which also originally meant a goat; whence σισύρνα (_i.e._

σισυρίνα), or σισύρα, a _goat-skin_: but τίτυρος is not allied to

σάτυρος (as the Schol. Theocrit. III. 2. VII. 72. Eustath. ad II.

τ᾽. p. 1157. 39. ed. Rom. suppose; comp. Creuzer, Symbolik, vol.

III. p. 197). The flute called τιτύρινος by the Italian Dorians

(Artemidorus ap. Athen. IV. p. 182 D. Eustath. p. 1157. 38), was so

named from a _shepherd_.

1623 Of the θεοὶ Παλικοὶ, near mount Ætna, which evidently were

originally identical with the goddess _Pales_ of the Romans; and

consequently her worship belongs to the Siculian branch of the Roman

religion.

1624 Schol. Theoc. et Virg. Ælian ubi sup.

1625 The poems of Theocritus unluckily give little information on these

points, as the bucolics are those which show the most artifice and

novelty.

1626 Poet. IV. 14.

1627 Athen. XIV. p. 631 D. At Athens too the country Phallic festival was

called ἑορτὴ ἁλῆτις.

1628 Semus Delius ap. Athen. p. 621 F. p. 622 C. and Suidas in Σῆμος.

Compare b. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1629 It seems probable that the proverb μωρότερος Μορύχου originally

referred to the rude mirth at the vintage-festivals, at which it was

common in Sicily (and probably elsewhere also) to smear the face

with the juice of the grape. In Italy there were also at the

festival of Artemis Corythallia clowns, with wooden masks (κύριθρα),

called κυριττοὶ, Hesych. in v.

1630 Æginetica, p. 170. sq.

1631 Aristoph. Vesp. 57. γέλωτα Μεγαρόθεν κεκλεμμένον. Eupolis ap. Schol.

Vesp. 57. et Aspas. ad Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 2. 20. fol. 53 B. τὸ

σκῶμμ᾽ ἀσελγὲς καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα ψυχρὸν γελῶσιν, ὡς ὁρᾷς, τὰ

παιδία (as emended by Dobree in Porson’s Tracts, p. 384.). See also

on the γέλως Μεγαρικὸς Diogenian. Prov. IV. 88. App. Vatic. I. 46.

Apostol. VI. 2. What Aristotle ubi sup. relates, refers merely to

the silly and unnecessary display of a Megarian choregus for comedy,

in the embellishment of the theatre.

1632 Aristot. Poet. 3. Aspasius ubi sup.

1633 Ecphantides ap. Aspas. ubi sup. says, Μεγαρικῆς κωμῳδίας ἆσμ᾽ οὐ

δίειμ᾽: ᾐσχυνόμην τὸ δρᾶμα Μεγαρικὸν ποιεῖν, as Meineke ad Menand.

p. 382. and Quæst. Seen. I. p. 6. has correctly written, _i.e._

“_the song which I sing is not that of a Megarian comedy; I was

ashamed to make my play Megarian_.”

1634 Concerning Ecphantides, see Schneider ad Aristot. Pol. VIII. 8.

Gaisford ad Hephæst. p. 97. and particularly Næke’s Chœrilus, p. 51

sq. and Meineke Quæst. Scen. I. p. 12. who correctly places him

between Magnes and Chionides on the one side, and Cratinus and

Teleclides on the other, about Olymp. 80. 460 B.C. [See also

Clinton, F. H. vol. II. Introduction, p. xxxvii.]

1635 Aspasius ubi sup. Schol. Dionys. Thrac. in Bekker’s Anecdota Gr. p.

748. compare Bentley Phalarid. p. 261.

1636 Marm. Par. ep. 34. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 308.

1637 As may be inferred from Statius Theb. XII. 619.

1638 According to Aristot. Poet. 3. it originated during the existence of

democracy at Megara; but the period of popular rule in this town (b.

III. ch. 9. § 10.) was too late for this to be strictly true, though

its rise was probably connected with a democratic principle, which

was alive at Megara before the time of Theagenes, and after his

downfall was continually on the increase.

1639 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 362 sqq. and Thiersch,

Einleitung zu Pindar, p. 117. with the opposite remark on the τὰ

ἐπινίκια κωμῳδός, Goettingen Review, 1821. part 106. p. 1050. I also

conceive that the comedies of Antheas the Lindian, the relation

(συγγενὴς) of Cleobulus, were lyric; who passed his whole life in

leading processions to Bacchus, and also practised the obscure

ποίησις διὰ συνθέτων ὀνομάτων, Athen. X. p. 445 A. In this instance

the comedies are evidently only _procession-songs_ from κῶμος. The

same is likewise true of the slanderous comedies of Timocreon, also

a Rhodian, Suidas in v.

1640 Aristoph. Byz. ap. Ath. XIV. p. 659 A. Hesych. in Μαίσων, τεττιξ.

Festus in Maeson. cf. Zenob. Prov. II. 11.

1641 Poet. III. 5.

1642 B. I. ch. 6. § 10.

1643 That the names “Chimarus” and “Tityrus” were taken from the

occupation of the shepherd and goatherd, is remarked by Welcker on

Schwenck’s Mythologische Andeutungen, p. 331.

1644 Diog. Laert. and τινὲς ap. Suid. cf. Diomed. 3. p. 486. ed. Putsch.

1645 See vol. I. p. 187. note a.

1646 This statement is indeed inconsistent with the account in Diog.

Laert. VIII. 78. that Epicharmus, when a child of three months, was

brought from Cos to Megara; but this is not a sufficient authority

to set aside the other accounts. The statements of the writer περὶ

κωμῳδίας in Kuster’s Aristophanes, p. xii. γέγονε κατὰ τὴν ογ

ὀλυμπιάδα, and of Suidas, ἦν δὲ πρὸ τῶν Περσικῶν ἔτη ἓξ, διδάσκων ἐν

Συρακούσαις, perhaps refer to the arrival of Epicharmus in Sicily.

1647 Suidas. His first covering the stage with purple skins reminds us of

the Megarian choregus, who used real purple. Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV.

2. 20. Bentley Phalarid. p. 260. considers him as identical with

Phormis the Mænalian, who served Gelon and Hieron with great honour;

to me it seems that the ideas of an Arcadian _condottiere_ and a

comic poet are quite irreconcileable.

1648 Fabric. Biblioth. vol. II. p. 315. Harles.

1649 There is no reason for supposing that there were never more than two

interlocutors in the plays of Epicharmus. Three, viz. Amycus,

Pollux, and Castor, are evidently engaged in the dialogue of which a

fragment is preserved in Schol. Soph. Aj. 722. Ἄμυκε μὴ κύδαζέ μοι

τὸν πρεσβύτερον ἀδελφέον; and there must have been several in the

Ἅφαιστος.

1650 See Casaubon ad Athen. III 13. p. 176. Harless ibid. p. 45.

1651 Photius in Ἥρας δεσμοὺς, and Suidas in Ἥρας δὲ δεσμούς.

1652 Figured in Mazocchi Tab. Heracl. ad p 138. Hancarville, vol. III.

pl. 105. Millin, Galérie Mythologique, XIII. 48.

1653 This form of the H or aspirate, which seems to have been peculiar to

the Italian Greeks, is found, besides the Heraclean Tables and this

vase, on the Pæstum vase, which Lanzi and others have edited

(_Illustrazione di due vast fittili_, Roma 1809).

1654 Why I do not (with Visconti Mus. Pio Clement, vol. IV. p. 20. and

Welcker ap. Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. IV. p. 386.) suppose that Dædalus

means Hephæstus himself, is sufficiently explained in the text.

1655 Millingen Vases de Coghill. pl. 6. and in Millin vol. I. pl. 9. The

scene in Millin vol. II. pl. 66. Tischbein III. 9. IV. 38. is

evidently the same, and Millingen’s opinion, p. 10. seems to me

untenable.

1656 B. II. ch. 12. § 10.

1657 Millin I. pl. 63. 72. comp. Tischbein II. 7. 18.

1658 Winckelmann Monum. ined. No. 190. p. 285. Hancarville, vol. IV. pl.

160.

1659 Tischbein IV. 57. The figure looks like the Κάγχας in the vase

described below.

1660 See A. W. Schlegel, Ueber dramatische Kunst. vol. II. p. 8.

1661 Millingen, Peintures de Collections diverses, 46, Compare the

explanation, p. 69. From this name _charinos_ for jester probably

comes the Latin _carinari_, in Festus. The Glossaries of Labbæus

render it by χαριεντίζεσθαι.

1662 Above, ch. 6. § 9.

1663 The best translation for κάγχας is “_cachinno_” in Persius Sat. I.

1664 That the above painting was taken from the Σκίρων of Epicharmus, I

could hardly maintain, from the grounds stated in the text; although

the bed of Procrustes probably occurred in that play, as well as in

the Σκίρων of Euripides. On the latter see Hemsterhuis ad Poll. X.

7. 35. Boettiger, Vasengemälde I. 2. p. 147.

1665 Ad Poll. IX. 4. 26.

1666 Schol. Pind. Pyth. I. 99. see Boeckh Explic. Pyth. II. p. 240.

1667 Athen. VI. p. 235. 236 A. X. p. 429 A.

1668 Menæchm. Prol. 12. Indeed the expression can only mean, that the

characters of this play of Plautus were Sicilian Greeks. Plautus has

sometimes Doric names for his characters; thus a parasite in the

Stichus I. 3. 89. is called _Miccotrogos_, from μικκὸς Doric for

μικρὸς. Such names as this were probably borrowed from Epicharmus.

Notwithstanding the line of Horace, “_Plautus ad exemplar Siculi

properare Epicharmi_,” his chief model was the Attic comedy.

1669 Epicharmus was γνωμικὸς, according to the writer περὶ κωμῳδίας, p.

xii. Kuster.

1670 Jambl. Pyth. 36. p. 219. whose statement seems probable to Boeckh,

Philolaos, p. 13. This person’s name is uncertain; Jamblichus calls

him Ἀρήσας, Ἄρκεσος Plutarch de de Gen. Socrat. 13.

1671 Diog. Laert. III. 16.

1672 Diog. Laert. VIII. 18. Eudocia ap. Villois. Anecd. vol. I. p. 193.

compare the Ἐπιχάρμειος λόγος in Suidas, and the fragm. Ennii, p.

110. ed. Hessel. It is however possible that this Ἐπιχάρμειος λόγος

was merely an extract from his comedies.

1673 Cicero Tusc. I. 8. ad Att. I. 19. calls him _acutus_ and _vafer_, as

being a Sicilian.

1674 Bentley Phalar. p. 413.

1675 As may be inferred from Photius in Ῥηγίνους, where Sophron’s son

Xenarchus (also a mimographer, Hermann ad Aristot. Poet. I. 3. p.

94.) is mentioned as a contemporary of Dionysius (the elder). Suidas

and Eudocia p. 389. place Sophron in the time of Xerxes and of

Euripides; several moderns have followed the former statement.

1676 Which appear to have partially corresponded with one another, as is

evident from some fragments extant, and from a comparison of the

Schol. in Gregor. Naz. in Montfaucon’s Biblioth. Coislin. p. 120.

with the poem to which it refers, in Tollius’ Itin. Ital. pag. 96

sq. See Hermann ibid. p. 93.

1677 Hence in early inscriptions fragments of hexameters often occur.

1678 Xen. Hell. I. 23. Plutarch Alcib. 28. Eustathius ad Hom. II. p. 63.

1. Apostol. IX. 2. Compare Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 264. But to

suppose that Hippocrates _intentionally_ wrote two scazons, would be

very absurd.

1679 Plutarch Lacæn. Apophth. p. 260. τεῦ and ἀπωθεῦ, according to

Valckenær. p. 260. who collects some letters, which say the same

thing a little differently.

1680 Compare, _e.g._, the fragment of Sophron in Athen. p. 86 E.

(Blomfield No. 12. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 342.)

τίνες δ ἐντί ποκα, φίλα, ταῖδε τοι μακραὶ κόγχαι; Β. σωλῆνες, τουτί

γα γλυκύκρεων κογχύλιον χηρᾶν γυναικῶν λίχνευμα.

1681 The actual representation of the mimes of Sophron is also proved by

the words of Solinus 5., that in Sicily “cavillatio mimica in _scena

stetit_.” Compare Salmas. Lect. Plin. p. 76 B.C.

1682 Σικελίζειν, τὸ ἀτηρεύεσθαι παρὰ Ἐπιχάρμῳ, οἱ δὲ τὸ πονηρεύεσθαι,

Photius &c. in v.

1683 Diod. XX. 63.

1684 See particularly on this point, Valckenær. ad Adoniaz. p. 200 sq.

1685 Demetrius de Elocut. 156. cf. 127. 162. Ulpian. ad Demosth. Olynth.

p. 36. comp. Apolladorus ἐντοῖς περὶ Σώφρονος fragm. p. 438 sq.

Heyne.

1686 Duris ap. Athen. XI. p. 504 B. Diog. Laert. III. 18. Olympiodorus

Vit. Plat. &c.

1687 On Sophron see the references of Fabricius Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 493

sq. Harl. and Blomfield in the Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 380.

Museum Criticum, vol. IV. p. 340-358. 559-569.

1688 J. Laurent. Lydus de Magistratibus Rom. p. 70. ed. Fuss.

1689 Identical with φλυακογραφία, Suidas in Ῥίνθων, &c.

1690 The Amphitryon, Hercules, Orestes, Telephus, the Iphigenias, and the

slave Meleager in Athenæus, Pollux, Hephæstion, and Herodian.

1691 This is the explanation given by several writers of the word

φλύακες, Steph. Byz. in Τάρας, Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 976.

φλύακες τραγικοὶ Nossis Epigr. ap. Brunck. Analect. vol. I. p. 196.

See Reuven’s Collect. Litter. p. 71.

1692 Apollonius Dysc. de Pronom. p. 364 C. ed. Bekker. comp. Valckenær.

ad Adoniaz. p. 294.

1693 In Hephæstion p. 10. Gaisford. Rhinthon says to a choliambic line,

in the last thesis of which there is a syllable lengthened by a

violent metrical licence, ἴθ᾽ Ἱππώνακτος τὸ μέτρον; οὐδέν μοι μέλει.

Trimeter iambics of Rhinthon often occur; _e.g._ two properly

constructed in Herodian περὶ μονήρους λέξεως p. 19. 27. 30. ed.

Dindorf.

1694 At least it appears that there is an hexameter extant of Sopater,

another writer of φλύακες, in Athen. XIV. p. 656 F. if Osann. Anal.

Rei Scenicæ p. 73. corrects rightly; the other verses of the same

poet are however all iambic. But the ἱλαροτραγῳδία of Rhinthon could

not by any means be generally called ἑξαμετρικὴ, and I agree with

Reuvens on Lydus I. 41. who considers that the statement ὃς

ἑξαμέτροις ἔγραψε κωμῳδίαν as a mistake of that writer, and Lange in

I. 40. seems properly to defend ἑξωτική.

1695 Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 294 classes Sclerias (whom he considers as

identical with Sciras in Athen. IX. p. 402 B.), Blæsus, and Rhinthon

together; and there is no doubt that in Lydus Reuvens p. 69 has

rightly corrected Ῥίνθωνα καὶ Σκίραν καὶ Βλαῖσον: as also

φλυακογράφων for πυθαγόρων, and Lange κωμικῶν for οὐ μικρῶν. In

Hesychius in ἄσεκτος, for παρὰ Ῥίνθωνι Ταραντίνῳ φιλοσόφῳ may be

corrected either φλυαοκογράφῳ or Τηλέφῳ.

1696 Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 426. Harl. Reuvens Coll. Litt. p. 79.

1697 II. VI. 132.

1698 V. 67; for an explanation of which passage see vol. I. p. 404. note

c. Perhaps μεγαρίζειν for “to lament” (Aristoph. Ach. 822. Suidas

and the Parœmiographers in Μεγαρέων δάκρυα, comp. Tyrrwhit ad

Aristot. Poet, p. 174.) refers to tragedy, as Μεγαρικὸς γέλως to

comedy.

1699 Suidas in Θέσπις. Photius, Apostolius, and Suidas in οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν

Διόνυσον, the former of whom says, Ἐπιγένους τοῦ Σικυωνίου τραγῳδίαν

εἰς αὐτὸν (in Suidas εἰς Διόνυσον, but perhaps it is an old error

for εἰς Ἄδραστον) ποιήσαντος ἐπεφώνησάν τινες τοῦτο; ὅθεν ἡ

παροιμία.

1700 Poet. 3. and Hermann ad I. p. 104.

1701 Themistius Or. XIX. p. 487. says directly that the Sicyonians were

the inventors of tragedy.

1702 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 362.

1703 Particularly by Aristocles ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 C.

1704 Suidas in Ἀρίων.

1705 Arion’s age is stated in Suidas after the beginning of Periander’s

reign, Olymp. 38, or, according to Eusebius, Olymp. 40. (628 or 620

B.C.)

1706 Hence also his father is called Cycleus, according to the analogy

remarked above, p. 357. note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the

footnote to “Helothales,” starting “That the names.”]

1707 Herod. I. 23. cf. Hellanic. ap. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1403. p. 87.

ed. Sturz. Aristot. ap. Procl. Chrestom. p. 382. Gaisford.

1708 Olymp. XIII. 18. cf. Schol. ad 1.

1709 Suidas in Πρατίνας. Acron ad Horat. A. P. 216. and compare the

Φλιάσιοι Σάτυροι in Dioscorides. Anthol. vol. I. p. 252. Jacob. See

Casaubon de Sat. Poësi I. 5. p. 120. Toup Emend. in Suid. vol. II.

p. 479.

1710 Paus. II. 13.

1711 As may be inferred from the fact that Pratinas also composed Doric

hyporchemes, Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 135, and from the title

of one of his plays, Δύμαιναι ἢ Καρυατίδες, above, p. 346, note n.

[Transcriber’s Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]

1712 F. Schlegel, Geschichte der Poësie der Griechen und Römer, I. 1. p.

226. sqq. Schneider, Geschichte der Elegie, Studien, vol. I. p. 2.

1713 The choral poetry of Corinna in the Bœotian dialect is however an

exception.

1714 Boeckh ad Pind. Fragm. p. 607.

1715 In the Prytaneum at Elis also Doric songs were sung in the time of

Pausanias (V. 15. 8.) and the ἔπη used at the Lernæa were in the

same dialect (ib. II. 37. 3.).

1716 See above, ch. 6. § 4. and the τετραγώνοι χοροὶ of the Laconists,

Ath. IV. pag. 181 C. from Timæus.

1717 Ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 21.

1718 Ib. Fragm. incert. 110. Boeckh; above, p. 94, note e. [Transcriber’s

Note: This is the footnote to “appointed for war,” starting “Which

is beautifully expressed.”]

1719 Ælian V. H. XII. 50.

1720 Ælian V. H. IX. 41.

1721 According to Athenæus XIV. p. 632 F.

1722 Plutarch Lycurg. 28.

1723 Sosibius ap. Athen. XV. p. 687 B.

1724 Above, ch. 6. § 3. I will not add Philoxenus of Cythera in the time

of Dionysius to the names in the text.

1725 Pausan III. 17. 3. Chilon likewise, according to Diog. Laert. I. 3.

68, wrote ἐλεγεῖα to the number of about 200 verses. Likewise Areus

the Laconian (Anton. Liber. 12.) was a lyric poet, and _different_

from the epic poet Ἄρειος in Paus. III. 13. 5. if such a person ever

existed. Also the μελοποιὸς Eurytus, who, according to J. Lydus de

Ostent. p. 283. Hase, wrote an ode, beginning “Ἀγαλμοειδὲς Ἔρως,”

and Zarex, according to the conjecture of Paus. I. 38. 4, both

Lacedæmonians.

1726 Valer. Max. V. 3. Archiloch. Fragm. p. 147. Liebel.

1727 Plutarch Cleom. 2. de Solert. Anim. I. Apophth. Lac. p. 244.

1728 Alcman ap. Apollon. Dys. de Pron. p. 381. Bekker. Fragm. 73.

Welcker.

1729 Alcman ap. Athen. XIII. p. 600 F. Fragm. 27. Schol. Aristoph. Lys.

1239. Suidas in Κλειταγόρα Olcarus ap. Wolf. Fragm. Mul. 2. p. 62,

145. Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. vol. II. p. 11, 157. vol. I. p. 883.

1730 In denying the truth of the report that Telesilla routed Cleomenes

(vol. I. pag. 191, note n.) I did not mean to disparage the

beautiful and genuine Doric character of that poetess and heroine.

1731 Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 135.

1732 Plutarch Sympos. V. 2. p. 206.

1733 Æginetica, p. 143. cf. Dissen. Expl. p. 381.

1734 See above, p. 151. note k, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote

to “influence of Athens,” starting “Compare what Timocreon.”] and

Fabricius.

1735 The assertion in the text makes it necessary for me to remark, that

I do not consider either Homer or his language as originally Ionic;

and the Ionisms of his dialect appear to me to have been introduced

by the prevailing schools of rhapsodists. To offer any proofs of

these positions would be improper in this place.

1736 The following epic poets were Dorians: Eumelus of Corinth, Cinæthon

of Lacedæmon, Augeas of Trœzen, Pisander of Rhodes, Panyasis of

Halicarnassus; and Empedocles of Agrigentum was the author of a

philosophical didactic poem.

1737 See b. II. ch. 8. §. 13.

1738 Ibid.

1739 B. I. ch. 7. §. 4. The laws of Lycurgus were doubtless reduced into

epic or elegiac verse, possibly by Terpander himself, who was

likewise an epic poet, and composed προοίμια as introductions to the

Homeric poems. He also wrote scolia, probably of the Doric kind,

Plutarch. Mus. 8. and spondaics in the Doric measure, as the

splendid one in Clemens Alex. VI. p. 658. Ζεῦ πάντων ἀρχὰ, πάντων

ἡγῆτορ Ζεῦ, Σοὶ πέμπω ταύτων ὕμνων ἀρχάν. His epic poems too, in

part at least, were written in the Doric dialect, in which the

earlier Orphic hymns were composed, according to Jamblichus, and

many Delphic oracles, concerning which see Appendix VIII. ad fin.

1740 Although several broken dactylics of this kind were named after

Alcman, he was doubtless not the first person who introduced them.

It is to this that the expression “_numeros minuit in carmine_”

(Welcker, p. 11.) refers.

1741 See the beautiful fragment, No. 10, in Welcker.

1742 Fragm. 63.

1743 See the beautiful lines of Alcman, fragm. 12.

Οὔ μ᾽ ἔτι, παρθενικαὶ μελιγάρυες ἱερόφωνοι,

γυῖα φέρειν δύναται. βάλε δὴ, βάλε, κηρύλος εἴην,

ὅστ᾽ ἐπὶ κύματος ἄνθος ἅμ᾽ ἀλκυόνεσσι ποτᾶται,

νηδεὲς ἦτορ ἔχων, ἁλιπόρφυρος εἴαρος ὄρνις.

1744 An ancient erotic poet was Ametor of Eleutherna in Crete, Athen.

XIV. p. 638 B. from whom a family or clan of Citharistæ was there

called Ἀμητορίδαι, Hesych. in v. whence correct Athenæus and Etymol.

M. p. 83, 15. The author of the Εἵλωτες laments in Athenæus XIV. p.

638. E. that “it had become oldfashioned to sing the songs of

Stesichorus, Alcman, and Simonides: but every one listened to

Gnesippus, who had taught lovers how to serenade their mistresses

with harps and guitars.” This fragment, which is written in logaœdic

metre, has little of the Doric dialect. The Εἵλωτες was a satyric

drama, and its complete title was οἱ Εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ,

Eustath. ad Il. p. 297. ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Ἡρωδιανοῦ. Perhaps in allusion to

the ἄγος Ταινάριον. See vol. I. p. 208. note q. Concerning the

origin of this singular drama, see some remarks in Niebuhr’s Rhein.

Museum, vol. III. p. 488.

1745 B. II. ch. 10. §. 9.

1746 Above, p. 308 notes h and i. [Transcriber’s Note: These are the

footnotes to “were admitted” and “free citizen,” starting “Xenoph.

Hellen. V.” and “See in particular.”]

1747 Above, ch. 4. § 1. ch. 5. § 7.

1748 B. II. ch. 8. § 18.

1749 Æginetica, p. 96. sq.

1750 Thiersch, Epochen der Kunst, vol. II. p. 27.

1751 B. III. ch. 2. § 3.

1752 B. II. ch. 8. § 18.

1753 It is only by this general proposition that we can explain why the

physicians of Cos wrote in the Ionic dialect.

1754 Plato Hipp. Maj. p. 285 C. Philostr. Vit. Soph. I. 11. p. 495.

Olear. comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 23. So also the Πολιτεία Σπαρτιατῶν of

Dicæarchus was annually read in the ephors’ office at Sparta (Suidas

in Δικαίαρχος) and in early times Hecatæus of Miletus found there a

favourable reception. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 199.

1755 This is only true of the more early times; for later we find many

historians among the Dorians. Of the Lacedæmonians, Nicocles and

Hippasus are mentioned by Athenæus (see Schweighäuser ad Athen. Ind.

p. 129.), Aristocrates by Plutarch and others, Pausanias by Suidas,

Diophantus by Fulgentius, and Sosibius is frequently quoted. See

Heeren de Font. Plutarchi p. 24. and Meursius Miscell. Lacon. IV.

17. Λαοκράτης, ὁ Σπαρτιάτης, in Plutarch de Malign. Herod. 35, is

doubtful. I also mention Dercyllus the Argive, because he wrote in

the dialect of his native city; see Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 274. et

ad Eurip. Phœn. Schol. p. 7. and see Schol. Vrat. Pind. Olymp. VII.

49. This Dercylus or Dercyllus is connected in a singular manner

with another historian, the very same quotations being sometimes

made from both. See Athen. III. p. 86 F. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p.

39. Sylb. Schol. Vat. in Eurip. Tro. 14. Since in all these passages

Agias and Dercylus are connected, we ought, in Schol. Vrat. Pind.

Ol. VI. 4 g. p. 167. Boeckh., where the manuscript has οἱ περὶ ΔΕΡΑ

(with a mark of abbreviation) καὶ Δέρκυλον, to write: οἱ περὶ Ἀγίαν

(not Δεινίαν). Probably a single work had been composed upon Argolic

antiquities, with a mixture of various Argolic expressions, by Agias

and Dercylus.

1756 Unless his religious turn, and a certain infantine simplicity, which

seems the more singular, when it is remembered that he wrote nearly

at the same time as Thucydides, are considered as traces of a Doric

character. He does not however appear to have the idea of

government, which belonged to that race.

1757 See b. III. ch. 9. § 7. besides which we may mention Gorgias of

Leontini, and the great sums gained by Hippias even in small towns

of Sicily, as, _e.g._, Inycus.—Sparta, on the other hand, together

with Argos (b. III. ch. 9. § 1. extr.), and Crete, had no orators

(Cicero Brut. 13. Tacitus de Orat. 40.), and rhetoric, as being an

art favouring untruth (τέχνη ἄνευ ἀληθείας, Plutarch et Apostol.

XIII. 72.), was prohibited, Athen. XIII. p. 611 A. Cephisophon the

_good speaker_ (ὁ ἀγαθὸς μυθήτας) was banished (Plutarch Inst. Lac.

p. 254. Apostol. XIX. 89.), and the ephors punished any person who

introduced a foreign method of speaking; in the same manner as at

Crete, those who made speeches of false display were driven from the

island (οἱ ἐν λόγοις ἀλαζονευόμενοι, Sextus Empiricus adv. Mathemat.

p. 68 B.). Nor is there any better criticism of sophistical

panegyrics, than the Lacedæmonian remark, τίς αὑτὸν ψέγει?

1758 Above, ch. 2. § 5.

1759 Plutarch de Garrul. 17.

1760 Ἡ βραχυλογία ἐγγὺς τῷ σιγᾶν, a saying of Lycurgus, according to

Apostolius IX. 69.

1761 See particularly Demetrius de Elocut. VIII. p. 241 sqq.

1762 Crete, according to Plat. Leg. I. p. 641. aimed more at πολύνοια

than πολυλογία. Σύντομος ἦν ὁ ξεῖνος is said of a Cretan, Anthol.

Palat. VII. 447.

1763 Æsch. Suppl. 198. 270. Pindar Isthm. V. 55. Sophocl. ap. Schol.

Isthm. VI. 87. See also Sophocles in Stobæus Florileg. 74. p. 325.

1764 Pope’s translation of Iliad III. 213. This passage is referred by

the Venetian Scholiast, Eustathius p. 406. ed. Rom. and Tzetzes

Chil. V. 317. to the βραχυλογία of the Lacedæmonians.

1765 Above, p. 298 note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“yoke of their wives,” starting “Plutarch Lyc. 14.”]

1766 Ap. Plutarch. Cimon. 4.

1767 Protag. p. 342. Plutarch Lycurg. 20 extr. refers to this passage.

When Thucydides IV. 84. says of Brasidas, that he was not, for a

Lacedæmonian, _unable to speak_ (ἀδύνατος λέγειν), he probably does

not mean literally that the Lacedæmonians were unable to speak, but

only points to their peculiar mode of speaking.

1768 Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 242. Similarly the saying αὐτᾶς ἄκουσα

τήνας in Plutarch Lycurg. 20. cf. Reg. Apophth. p. 129.

1769 Herod. VII. 226. Lac. Apophth. p. 245.

1770 P. 244. Compare the apophthegm in Plutarch de Frat. Amor. 8. p. 44.

1771 This figurative turn may be particularly remarked in Cleomenes’

address to Crius, in the speech of Bulis and Sperthis to Hydarnes,

in which they say, “Would you then advise us to fight for freedom,

not with lances, but with axes?” and the action of Amompharetus, who

laid a block of stone at the feet of Pausanias, as if it were a

pebble for voting.

1772 Athen. VI. p. 261 C.

1773 Plutarch et Heracl. Pont. 2.

1774 Plutarch Lycurg. 17. 19.

1775 B. III. ch. 11. § 3.

1776 This I infer from the passage of Pollux quoted above, p. 347. note

b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “grammarian,”

starting “Pollux IV.”] compared with the joke (χλεύασμα) of

Leotychides at the gymnopædia in Herod. VI. 67.

1777 Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 3. 5. and above, p. 288. note f. [Transcriber’s

Note: This is the footnote to “not prohibited,” starting “Critias

ubi sup.”]

1778 Plutarch Lycurg. 12. comp. Macrob. Sat. VII. 3.

1779 Τῷ λεγομένῳ εἰς τὸ μέσον, Herod. VI. 129.

1780 Θεὸς δ᾽ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἄειδεν Ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίης πειρώμενος, ἠύτε κοῦροι

Ἡβηταὶ θαλίησι παραιβόλα κερτομέουσιν, v. 54.

_ 1781 Gämelicher Sprüche wart do niht verdeit_, _i.e._ non abstinebatur a

sermonibus ludicris. Niebelungen Lied. v. 6707. p. 345. ed. 1820.

1782 Sosibius ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 25. It is worthy of remark, that the

worship of abstract ideas, as of _Death_, of _Fear_ (b. III. ch. 7.

§ 7.), of _Fortune_ (Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 253.), existed among the

Spartans, as among the Romans; see Plutarch Cleom. 9.

1783 Plutarch Ages. 2.

1784 Plutarch Cleom. 13.

1785 Protag. p. 342. see also Plutarch de Garrul. 17.

1786 Hence this mode of expression was called the _Chilonian_, Diog.

Laert. I. 72.

1787 Or Spartan, see the passages quoted above, p. 8. note p.

[Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Money makes the man,”

starting “Χρήματα χρήματ᾽ ἀνὴρ.”] comp. Diog. Laert. I. 41. Others

are mentioned by Hermippus, ibid. 42.

1788 Thus, for example, Apollo is said to have given the same answer to

Gyges, as Solon to Crœsus, Valer. Maxim. VII. 1, 2.

1789 Plutarch ubi sup.

1790 The chief passage on this point is Demetr. Phaler. ap. Diog. Laert.

I. 22. who places the event in the archonship of Damasias (Olymp.

49. 3.), the same year in which, according to the Parian Marble,

which probably follows the same authority, the second Pythian ἀγὼν

γυμνικὸς, the first ἀγὼν στεφανίτης, fell. Also Branchus, the

ancient prophet of Miletus, is mentioned as βραχυλόγος, Diog. Laert.

I. 72.

1791 Diog. Laert. I. 89. comp. Jacobs Comment. Anthol. tom. I. p. 194.

1792 Athen. X. p. 448 B. Aristot. Rhet. III. 2. Plutarch Sept. Sap.

Conviv. III. 10. Menage Hist. Mulier. Philos. 4. Hence the

Κλεοβουλῖναι of Cratinus, concerning which see Schweighæuser ad Ind.

Ath. p. 82.

1793 Athen. X. p. 452 A.

1794 Epicharmus called it λόγον ἐν λόγῳ, Eustathius ad Od. IX. p. 1634.

15. ed. Rom. Many ancient _griphi_ are in the Doric dialect; though

this is not always the case.

1795 Thus for example, if they said, “Admit no swallows into your house,”

they not only avoided the company of _talkative_ persons

(Porphyrius, Vit. Pythag. 42.), but actually prevented swallows from

building under their roofs. On this subject see the ancient writers

quoted by Fabricius Bibl. Græc. vol. I. p. 788 sq. comp. Creuzer’s

Symbolik, vol. I. p. 104.

1796 Orchomenos, p. 438. note 2.

1797 B. I. ch. 5. § 3.

1798 There is an account of a dialogue between Pythagoras and Leon the

tyrant of Phlius, Cicero Tusc. Quæst. V. 3. Diog. Laert. VIII. 8.

According to Diogenes Laert. VII. 1. Pythagoras was the _fourth_

from Cleonymus, who had fled from Phlius; and therefore he would be

a Dorian.

1799 B. II. ch. 8. § 20.

1800 See vol. I. p. 370. note m.

1801 B. III. ch. 9. § 16.

1802 Their silence is also worthy of remark, Timæus ap. Diog. Laert.

VIII. 17. Gale Opusc. Mythol. vol. I. p. 739. On the use of music

see b. II. ch. 8. § 20. A work of Philochorus is cited: περὶ ἡρωΐδων

ἤτοι Πυθαγορείων γυναικῶν. See Siebel. Fragm. p. 9.

1803 Pausan. III. 13. 2. See vol. I. p. 76. note l.

1804 Sosibius ap. Diog. Laert. I. 10, 12. Pausan. II. 21. 4. III. II. 8.

III. 12. 9. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 399. ed. Potter. Heinrich’s

Epimenides, p. 128. Epimenides is said to have informed the Spartans

of a defeat at Orchomenos, Diog. Laert. I. 117., of which nothing

else is known.

1805 Plutarch Agid. 10. Diog. Laert. I. 117. from Theopompus, Creuzer

Init. Philos. Platon. vol. II. p. 164.

1806 Vol. I. p. 208. note p.

1807 He erected the first sun-dial at Sparta, Plin. H. N. II. 66.

1808 See, _e.g._, Jamblich. Vit. Pythag. 36.

1809 Herod. IV. 77.

1810 Ἀφθονία σχολῆς, Plutarch Lycurg. 24. Inst. Lac. p. 255.

1811 Id. Lycurg. 24. Lac. Apophth. p. 207.

1812 Manso, vol. I. 2, p. 201.

1813 Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 7. Hence the excellence of the Lacedæmonian

hounds, Pind. Hyporch. fragm. 3. p. 599. Boeckh. Simonides ap.

Plutarch Symp. IX. 15. 2. Meursius Misc. Lac. III. 1. The love of

the Cretans for the chase is well known, see above, ch. 4. § 7.

1814 B. III. ch. 10. § 2. cf. Plutarch Lycurg. 25. Also in Cleomen. 30. I

prefer ταῖς λέσχαις to the other reading, ταῖς σχολαῖς.

1815 Plutarch Lycurg. 25.

1816 Id. Inst. Lacon. p. 254. τὸν ἐκ τοῦ γυμνασίου νεανίσκον ἐπετίμων ὅτι

τὴν εἰς πυλαίαν ὁδὸν ἠπιστατο.

1817 At Delphi it was a regular fair (Dio Chrys. Orat. 77. p. 414.

Reisk.), and also a slave-market, as I infer from Plutarch Prov.

Alex. p. 105. By means of it a considerable suburb, or new-town,

called Pylæa, was formed at Delphi, Plutarch de Pyth. Orac. 29. p.

296. Perhaps this was the locality of the Πυλαία of Cratinus.

1818 At Rhodes liars were called πυλαιασταὶ, Hesychius and Schol. ad

Plutarch. Artaxerx. I. p. 387. ed. Hutten. compare Suidas in v. In

Plutarch de Fac. Lunæ 8. jugglers of the Pylæa, in the Life of

Pyrrhus, 29. πυλαικὴ ὀχλαγωγία, are mentioned. But these expressions

do not refer to the Pylæa cf Delphi.

1819 Polyb. VIII. 30.

1820 See Athen. XII. p. 522 F.

1821 Plutarch Lycurg. 27. Inst. Lac. p. 251. The Laconian word for “to

bury” was τιθήμεναι, Schol. Cantabr. II. ψ᾽. 83. On the burial of

the king, see b. III. ch. 6. § 6.

1822 Plutarch Lycurg. 27. Thus Pausanias III. 14, 1. saw at Sparta the

names of the 300 who died at Thermopylæ, and the same monument is,

as it appears, referred to by Herodotus VII. 224.

1823 What Ælian. V.H. VI. 6. says only of persons who had fallen in

battle, Plutarch states of _all_ who died.

1824 B. II. ch. 6, § 2. At Argos the mourning was white, Plut. Quæst.

Rom. 26.

1825 Plutarch Solon. 9, 10. comp. Ælian. V. H. V. 14. and Minervæ

Poliadis Sacra, p. 27.

1826 It is remarkable, that among all the names for the races of the

Greek nation, Δωριεὺς alone is by itself a laudatory term (as in

several passages of Pindar, Boeckh ad Pyth. VIII. 21. Dissen ad Nem.

III. 3. and frequently in Plutarch. See likewise the epigram in

Athen. V. p. 209 E. and Damagetus in the Palatine Anthology, VII.

231.), and expresses a national pride respected by the other Greeks,

Thuc. VI. 77. Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 385 C.

1827 B. II. ch. 8. § 20. B. III. ch. 1. § 1. 10.

1828 B. III. ch. 9. § 18.

1829 Ib. ch. 4. § 6.

1830 Ib. ch. 9. § 18. ch. 12. § 5. Above, ch. 5. § 2.

1831 See, _e.g._, above, ch. 3. § 3.

1832 See above, p. 4. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote

to “ancient authors,” starting “From Thucyd. I.”]

1833 B. III. ch. 9. ad fin.

1834 B. II. ch. 6. § 2.

1835 B. III. ch. 12. § 9.

1836 Above, ch. 8. § 1.

1837 Ib. § 2.

1838 With which the ἄτολμον of the Spartans was connected.

1839 B. III. ch. 1. § 1.

1840 Above, ch. 2. § 1. ch. 3. § 1. ch. 6. § 1.

1841 Above, ch. 7. § 12.

1842 B. III. ch. 1. § 10.

1843 B. II. ch. 8. § 2. 11. 20.

1844 Ib. § 10. Above, ch. 6. § 2.

1845 B. II. ch. 6. § 7. ch. 8. § 7.

1846 Above, ch. 8. § 17. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section

number in that chapter.]

1847 B. II. ch. 5. § 7. ch. 8. § 12. ch. 10. § 9.

1848 B. III. ch. 4. § 1.

1849 According to Demetrius de Elocut. § 122. the ephors caused a person

to be scourged who had made some innovation in the game of ball; a

subject on which Timocrates, a Spartan, had written a treatise.

1850 Herod. IX. 54. Λακεδαιμονίων ἄλλα φρονεόντων καὶ ἄλλα λεγόντων. So

also Eurip. Androm. 452. In this poet’s attacks upon Sparta the date

should always be attended to (Markland ad Suppl. 187. Wüstemann

Præf. ad Alcest. p. xv.) He calls the Spartans δόλια βουλευτήρια,

ψευδῶν ἄνακτας in the Andromache, when the Athenians accused them of

a breach of treaty, Olymp. 90. 2, according to Petit and Boeckh

Trag. Princip. p. 190. In the Orestes (Olymp. 92. 4.) in reference

to the proposals of the Spartans for peace after the disasters of

Mindarus, which the Athenians had declined, Philochorus ap. Schol.

Aristoph. Vesp. 371. (cf. ad 772, 903), who states that these were

made in Olymp. 92, 2. Diodorus XIII. 52, however, in Olymp. 92. 3.

Aristophanes Lys. 1269. calls them αἱμύλας ἀλώπεκας (comp. the false

Bacis Pac. 1068. Lycophr. 1124), in Olymp. 92. 1. at the time when

the proverb arose, οἴκοι λέοντες, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ δ᾽ ἀλώπεκες, Meursius

Misc. Lac. III. 2. However, similar charges of perfidy and treachery

are made against them in the Acharneans v. 308, οἶσιν οὔτε βωμὸς

οὔτε πίστις οὔθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει, in Olymp. 88. 3.

1851 In Plutarch. Ages. 15, 37. it is said that the benefit of his

country was the aim of a Spartan’s actions. The Athenians say in

Thuc. V. 105, that the Lacedæmonians, as far as respects themselves

and their native institutions, are virtuous and well-principled; but

that in their dealings with foreign states their own interest was

their only standard.

1852 B. III. ch. 11. § 11. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section

number in that chapter.]

1853 Plutarch. Lysand. 1.

1854 Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8. Ephorus ap. Athen. XI. p. 500 C. says of

Dercylidas, ἦν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ τρόπῳ Λακωνικὸν οὐδ᾽ ἁπλοῦ νἔχων.

1855 Lysand. 5.

1856 Besides Xenophon, see Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 210. Diod. XIII. 76,

97. and Manso, vol. II. 327. sqq.

1857 Plutarch Pelopid. 2.

1858 Plutarch Lysand. 5.

1859 Pedaritus has been sufficiently defended by Valckenær ad Adoniaz.

pag. 261. against the charge of the exiles at Chios.

1860 See Xenophon cited above, p. 4. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is

the footnote to “ancient authors,” starting “From Thucyd. I.”]

1861 Above, p. 218, note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“six hundred talents,” starting “Proofs of wealth.”]

1862 Thuc. V. 50. Paus. VI. 2. 1.

1863 Thuc. VIII. 43.

1864 Thuc. VIII. 84.

1865 Paus. III. 2. 8.

1866 Tit. I. 12.

1867 B. III. ch. 8. § 2. Hence Polybius IV. 54. 6. calls the Lyctians the

best men in Crete. They are also said to have driven the Epicureans

from their city, Suidas, vol. I, p. 815. who mentions a νόμος τῇ

ἐπιχωρίᾳ φωνῇ, probably a forgery, like the decree against

Timotheus, above, ch. 6. § 3.

1868 B. I. ch. 8. § 7. b. III. ch. 9. § 1.

1869 See also on the Ἀργεῖοι φῶρες Suidas in v. Prov. Vat. II. 49.

1870 B. III. ch. 9. § 3.

1871 The school of the ancient Coreggio, Protogenes. See also the

Anacreontic Ode XXVIII. 3. of the Alexandrine or Roman age.

1872 Meyer’s Geschichte der Kunst, vol. I. p. 208, 218.

1873 Meurs. Rhod. I. 20. cf. Anacreont. Od. XXXII. 16.

1874 The hospitality of Corinth is confirmed by the proverb ἀεί τις ἐν

Κύδωνος, Zenob. II. 42. Prov. Vat. IV. 19. Diogenian. VIII. 42.

Suidas I. 86. ed. Schott. Plutarch Prov. Al. 129. Apostolius VIII.

66.

1875 Corinthian ἄσωτοι occur so early as the 5th Olympiad (vol. I. p.

134), and were restrained by ancient laws, ib. p. 189. and Lydus de

Magistr. Rom. I. 42. According to Alciphron Ep. 60. Corinth itself

was beautiful and full of luxuries, but the inhabitants were

ἀχάριστοι and ἀνεπαφρόδιτοι.

1876 B. III. ch. 9. § 5.

1877 In Corinth the husbandman was obliged ἐκλιθοβολεῖν, but not in

Syracuse. Theophrast. de Caus. pluv. III. 20. But ἀμᾶν Κορινθικὸν

(Suidas in Κορινθ.) probably refers to τὰ μεταξὺ Κορίνθου καὶ

Σικύωνος.

1878 Thuc. VI. 20.

1879 VIII. 96.

1880 VI. 73.

1881 Ib. above, B. III. ch. 9. § 7.

1882 See B. I. ch. 8. § 2.

1883 Above, page 300, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote

to “courtesans,” starting “See b. II. ch. 10.”] b. IV. ch. 7. § 8,

12.

1884 Thuc. I. 28.

1885 B. III. ch. 9. § 9.

1886 Ib. and vol. I. pag. 197, note d.

1887 Hell. VI. 5. 45.

1888 Theophrast. ubi sup. Strabo IX. p. 393. Isocrat. de Pace, p. 183. A.

in whose time however Megara had rich families.

1889 Above, p. 222, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“the interior,” starting “Concerning Ægina.”]

1890 Above, p. 371, note z. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“before Thespis,” starting “Suidas in Θέσπις.”]

1891 Above, p. 174, note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“a long time,” starting “Theopompus ap. Athen.”]

1892 Περὶ Βυζαντίων ap. Athen. X. p. 442 C. Ælian. V. H. III. 14.

1893 See Aristot. Pol. III. 4. 1.

1894 Menander ap. Ælian. ubi sup. Athen. X. p. 442. Nicetas Acominatus

Hist. p. 251. ed. Fabric.

1895 Sextus Empiricus adv. Rhetor. § 37.

1896 Herod. VII. 99.

1897 I say _hardly_, on account of an exception which a fragment of the

Argolica of Dinias (ap. Herodian. περὶ μον. λέξεως, p. 8. 14.

emended by Dindorf) establishes, viz. that “Perimeda, queen of

Tegea, generally called Χοίρα, compelled the captured Lacedæmonians

to cut a channel for the river Lachas across the plain.”

1898 B. III. ch. 9. § 15. above, ch. 5. § 5.

1899 Of this we have probably a trace in Hesychius, μαιριῆν, κακῶς ἔχειν,

in Tarentine; which probably refers to the Sirocco in the dog-days.

_ 1900 E.g._ besides the names of coins, πᾶνα, _panem_, among the

Messapians and Tarentines, Athen. III. p. 111 C. σάννορος, _sannio_,

in Tarentum, Hesychius.

1901 IV. 27. 5.

1902 Vol. I. p. 210, note c.

1903 The coins which Eckhel ascribes to the time of Anaxilaus have both

MESSANION and MESSENION; but it is not improbable that the first was

merely affectation, as the city appeared more illustrious if its

origin was Doric: it cannot be doubted that the language of the

Samian-Chalcidian population preponderated in common life.

1904 Both Xenarchus (ap. Phot. in Ῥηγ. Apostol. XVII. 15. cf. XI. 72.)

and Nymphodorus (ap. Athen. I. p. 19 F.) reproach them with

effeminacy.

1905 See Athen. IV. p. 173.

1906 Above, § 1.

1907 Eustath. ad Il. α᾽. p. 96. Rom. Etymol. M. and Gud. in many places.

Phavorin. Ecl. p. 296. 305. Dindorf.

1908 Πινδάροιο occurs in the fragments of Corinna the Bœotian poetess, p.

51. Wolf.

1909 Maittaire p. 173. ed. Sturz.

1910 Gregor. Corinth, p. 580. Schæfer.

1911 Hesychius in πεμφθοί.

1912 II. 37. 3.

1913 Herod. VIII. 73.

1914 Pausan. IV. 34, 5. The Eleutherolacones likewise use many Dorisms in

their decrees.

1915 Strabo VIII. p. 333. Plutarch Philopœmen. 2.

1916 Corp. Inscript. No. 1513.

1917 ϜΑΛΙΣ, ϜΕΤΕΑ, ϜΕΠΟΣ, ϜΑΡΓΟΝ, ϜΕΤΑΣ, βαδὺ for ϝηδὺ.

1918 Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 11.

1919 Hesych. in δίκαρ and βαρβαρόφωνος. Phavorinus p. 429. 21.

1920 Vol. I. p. 271. note z.

1921 Plat. Cratyl. p. 434. Strab. X. p. 448. Hesychius in Ἐρετρίεων ρῶ,

Diogenian. IV. 57. Apostol. IX. 6.

1922 Suidas in χαλκιδίζειν.

1923 Koen ad Gregov. Cor. p. 300.

1924 Etymol. M. p. 391. 13.

1925 Stephanus of Byzantium in Ἰωνία reckons the Ætolians generally as

Dorians. Chishull Ant. As. p. 104.

1926 Grammaticus Meermannianus ap. Gregor. Corinth. p. 642.

1927 Such as ä, ö, and ü, which are not diphthongs, but (as it were)

middle tones among the vowels.

1928 Vit. Pythagor. 34.

1929 As is particularly stated by Clem. Alex. VI. p. 658. Compare book

IV. c. 6. § 3.

1930 Aristides Quintil. de Musica, vol. II. p. 93.

1931 That is, the Α, which is pronounced broad by the Germans (as in

_father_), has in English generally the sound of their E.

1932 See Welcker ad Alcman. fragm. 65. ἐμίνγα Sophron. ἴγωνγα, the

Megarian in Aristoph. Acharn. 736. 764. 775.

1933 Tab. Heracl. Comp. Apollon. de Adverb. p. 563.

1934 Aristoph. Ach. 787.

1935 Vol. I. p. 375. note f.

1936 Hesychius in v. Inscript. and see Koen ad Greg. C. p. 305.

1937 Aristoph. Lysist. 1174, 1320. and Phavorinus Ecl. p. 156. Dindorf.

1938 De Corona p. 255.

1939 Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 134.

1940 Koen ad Greg. C. p. 229.

1941 Ap. Apollon. de Pronom. p. 343. C. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 563.

Compare Maittaire p. 227.

1942 Etymol. M. p. 434, 51. Koen ubi sup. p. 185.

1943 Ἐνίκη for ἐνίκαε also occurs in a poetical inscription, which was

contained in Boeckh’s Corp. Inscript. No. 17, but can now be safely

amended from a better copy in Ross Inscript. Grec. Ined. fascie. 1.

n. 55. It runs as follows, with a few supplements.

...ΟΟΝΑΝΕΘΗΚΕ

τε]ΝΤΕΑΙΣΧΥΛΛΟ[σ

ΘΙΟΠΟΣΤΟΙΣΔΑΜ

ΟΣΙΟΙΣΕΝΑΕΘΛΟ

ΙΣ: ΤΕΤΡΑΚΙΤΕ[σ

ΠΑΔΙΟΝΝΙΚΕΚΑΙ

ΔΙΣΤΟΝΟΠΛΙΤΑ[ν

It should be read as follows:

... θων ἀνέθηκε τἤντεα.

Ἴσχυλλος Θίοπος τοῖς δαμοσίοις ἐν ἀέθλοις,

Τετράκι τε σπάδιον νίκη καὶ δὶς τὸν ὁπλίταν.

“So and so (probably Ischylus himself) has offered up the arms.

Ischylus, the son of Theops, was conqueror in the public games (of

Argos), four times in the stadion, and twice in the hoplite race.”

Θίοψ is Doric for Θέοψ; and σπάδιον for στάδιον is cited as Doric,

as well as Æolic.

1944 Ap. Ammon. p. 122. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 566.

1945 Dodwell’s Travels vol. II. p. 503. Mustoxidi pp. 188. 193-7.

1946 An inscription of the island of Cos in the Mém. de l’Acad. des

Inscriptions tom. XLVII. p. 325. has τὸς θεός. τὸς ἀνθρώπως, τὸς

ἄλλως, Epicharmus as corrected by Hermann, ap. Diog. Laert. III. 11,

17.

1947 Chishull Aut. As. Compare Koen ad Greg. C. p. 220.

1948 Herodianus in the Hortus Adon. p. 209.

1949 Phavorinus p. 283. Dindorf. Eustath. ad Il θ᾽. p. 722. 60. Gregorius

p. 355. Koen ad 1. Maittaire p. 330.

1950 Herodian et Eustath. ubi sup. Etym. M. p. 302. 2 where for σπένδω

and σπείδω the sense everywhere requires σπένσω and σπείσω.

1951 Etymol. M. p. 135. 45. Etymol. Gud. p. 73. 44. where the same

correction should be made.

1952 Etym. M. p. 156. 17.

1953 Herodian. p. 10. ed. Dindorf.

1954 See Thiersch Act. Monac. II. 3. p. 393. In the town of Ποσειδωνία

ΠΑΙΣΤΟΝ, Achæans of Sybaris joined the Trœzenians, and hence the

common form of the name.

1955 Xenoph. Hell. III. 3. 2. Aristid. Or. Rhod. vol. II. p. 346.

1956 Maittaire p. 349; and compare the inscription of Gela in Castelli p.

84.

1957 Etymol. M. p. 157. 48. p. 167. 37.

1958 Vol. II. p. 35, note a.

1959 Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 287. cf. ad Eurip. Phœn. 1671.

1960 Above, p. 349. note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to

“regular players,” starting “Although the Spartans.”] Compare

Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 382.

1961 Ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 19. less correctly in Apophth. Lucon. p. 226. For

the common reading ἐρατέημεν Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 258.

conjectures κρατέῃ, Haitinger in Act. Monac. vol. III. 3. pag. 311.

μέσδων—ἐρᾶτε ἦμεν.

1962 See Schneider’s Latin Grammar, vol. I. p. 385.

1963 On the other hand the High German dialect changed the Greek sound of

Δ into Z; _e.g._ δέκα, _zehen_, δύω, _zwo_, δάκτυλος, _zühe_, δάκρυ,

_zähre_, δεικνύναι _zeigen_, dis—_zer_—&c. See Grimm’s Deutsche

Grammatik, vol. I. p. 586.

1964 Etym. M. p. 605. 43. Heraclides ap. Eustath. ad Od. κ᾽. p. 1654.

Phavorinus p. 444. Dindorf. Koen ad Greg. p. 613.

1965 The same tendency may be traced in the German, as in _Salz_, _Süss_,

_Sitz_ for ἅλς, ἡδὺ, ἕδος.

1966 Valckenær ad Adon. p. 277.

1967 Vol. II. p. 310, note t. This explains the Κυνοουρέων φυλὴ in recent

Laconian inscriptions (Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. 609.); it stands

for Κυνοὁυρέων, _i.e._ Κυνοσουρέων. For the same reason Hesych. in

Εὐτρηΐους calls this form Doric for Εὐτρησίους; the word was

pronounced Εὐτρηἱοι.

1968 Etymol. M. pag. 391. 13. Eustath. ad Il. λ᾽. pag. 844. 7. Maittaire

p. 199.

1969 Book IV. ch. 6. § 3.

1970 Apollon. de Pronom. pag. 355. A. Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 294.

1971 In High German Rhotacism is very prevalent, although, according to

Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I. pp. 802, 825, it succeeded in the

place of the S; and the German article _der_ clearly corresponds

with that which must have been the original Doric article, viz. τόρ.

1972 The ancient High German likewise always has—_mês_ in the same

person.

1973 θαυλακίζειν, Blomfield, Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 387.

1974 ἀγῆται is the best reading in Aristoph. Lysist. 1314.

1975 See Reisig. Synt. Critic. p. 14.

1976 I feel now considerable doubt whether ἀϜέλιος, ἀβέλιος really comes

from ἕλη, Ϝέλα. The original form was, without doubt, ΣΑϜΕΛΙΟΣ,

whence _Sol_ in Latin, Sòl in Icelandish, _Saule_ in Lithuanian (a

language which has a remarkable resemblance to the Greek). Hence in

Greek Ἁ ϜΕΛΙΟΣ, in Homer softened into ἡέλιος, afterwards among the

Dorians ἅλιος, in Attic ἥλιος. Now it seems doubtful whether this ἁ,

or ΣΑ can be considered as the α _conjunctionis_, as in ἀδελφεὸς, or

whether ΣΑ ϜΕΑΙΟΣ should not rather be considered as a separate

root.

1977 Ptolem. Hephæst. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 486.; comp. Toup, ad Hesych.

vol. IV. pag. 165. Gregor. Corinth, p. 235.; the Megarian in

Aristoph. Ach. 796.; the Delphian Inscription in Boeckh No. 1690.;

Epicharmus ap. Athen. VIII. p. 362 B.C. ὀδολκαὶ a Cretan form

according to Hesychius.

1978 Schol. Æschyl. Theb. 367. Schol. Nicand. Ther. 625.

1979 See Reisig. Synt. Critic, p. 16.

1980 For instance, ἁ Ϝράτρα τοῖς Ϝαλείοις, Τἀργεῖοι ἀνέθεν τῷ Δὶ, &c.:

among the treaties in Thucydides the Doric documents always τοὶ

Ἀργεῖοι, the Athenian Ἀργεῖοι, &c.—also the form ἁ Σπάρτα which so

frequently occurs (οὐ γὰρ πάτριον τᾷ Σπάρτᾳ, Tyrtæus; ἀξίως τῆς

Σπάρτης, Thuc. I. 86. &c.), belongs to the same class.

1981 I may incidentally remark that the consideration of the word μάω,

and its derivatives, shows how little ground there is for the notion

that the Muses were originally _Ionic_ deities: does not the word

μοῦσα, incorrectly formed from μῶσα, the feminine participle of μάω,

distinctly prove that the word, and also the idea, were transferred

from a different branch of the Greek language and nation?

1982 A remarkable agreement of Tarentine, Lacedæmonian, and Cretan words

is ἀματὶς ἅπαξ Tarent., ἀμακίον Lacon., ἄμακις Cret. in Hesychius.

1983 See Lobeck, Aglaoph. vol. 11. p. 846.

1984 This date must have been fixed by the logographers.

1985 According to Apollodorus, vol. I. p. 145, note q, from whom Tzetzes,

Chil. XII. 193, gives the same statement (with the exception of what

he says on the age of Homer, which must be a misunderstanding).

Apollodorus is followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Solinus:

see Larcher, Chronologie d’Hérodote, p. 373. The calculation of

Timæus only differed by nine years, vol. I. p. 131. note t, who is

nearly followed by Velleius Paterculus. The date of Apollodorus can

now be completely restored from the Armenian Eusebius p. 166; from

which we see that, according to Apollodorus, the first Olympiad

coincided with the 10th year of Alcamenes. The Canons of Eusebius

place the first Olympiad at the 37th and last year of Alcamenes; an

error which appears to have arisen from Eusebius having taken the

first year of Eurysthenes as identical with the epoch of the return

of the Heraclidæ. Apollodorus however appears to have allowed thirty

years for the minority of the brothers, see vol. II. p. 90. note u.

[Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “rights by law,”

starting “Plut. Lyc. 25.”] And he seems not to have reckoned the

time from the entrance of the Heraclidæ into Sparta until the birth

of the brothers, which Herod. VII. 52. calls χρόνον οὐ πολλόν. Now

the canons have 324 years from the return of the Heraclidæ to Olymp.

1. (916 to 1240); if from this we deduct 26 years for Alcamenes, in

whose 37th year the first Olympiad falls, according to the

calculation of the canons, and add 30 years for the minority, we

obtain 328, the number of Apollodorus. Apollodorus apparently took

the 10 years of Alcamenes before Olymp. 1. as complete; whereas

Eratosthenes probably placed Olymp. 1. at the beginning of this 10th

year; hence the difference of 327 and 328 years. See however Clinton

F. H. vol. I. p. 124. 330.

1986 If the years of the minority are included in those of the reign, (as

the Spartans used to do in reckoning the reigns of their kings,) the

30 years of the guardianship of Theras must be given to Eurysthenes

and Procles. But since this guardianship for the heads of both the

royal houses was something peculiar, it is possible that the Spartan

lists, and the Alexandrine chronologists who followed them, reckoned

these 30 years separately.—For a defence of the opinion that the

Spartan ἀναγραφαὶ contained chronological statements, and for an

explanation of their character in reference to the remarks of Mr.

Lewis (Philol. Museum, vol. II. p. 46.) and Mr. Clinton (F. H. vol.

I. p. 332), see the Gottingen Gel. Anz. 1837. p. 893.

1987 Vol. I. p. 147. note b. The line of the Corinthian princes is

arranged after Diodorus, who evidently followed the Alexandrine

chronologists; but committed an error similar to that just pointed

out in Eusebius. It has been corrected by Wesseling from Didymus.

1988 According to Eusebius. Compare b. II. ch. 3. § 4.

1989 Æginetica, p. 98.

1990 The Armenian Eusebius p. 166. in the extract from Diodorus, assigns

51 years to Procles, for which I correct 41; see b. I. ch. 5. § 14.

But the list of the Proclidæ in that extract is very imperfect; and

therefore only gives certain dates _before_ Soüs and _after_

Charilaus.

1991 Larcher will not allow that Agis only reigned one year, as in that

case he could not have been so famous. But (to reason in his own

manner) may he not have obtained his renown when regent, and may not

the regret for the king, whom the nation so soon lost, have even

increased the fame of his reign?

1992 This date and others followed by an asterisk are merely

approximations to the truth.

1993 On this epoch see vol. I. p. 145. note q. Eratosthenes, who fixed

the first Olympiad 407 years after the fall of Troy, placed Lycurgus

219 years after the return of the Heraclidæ; so also Porphyrius ap.

Euseb. Armen. p. 139 Scalig. p. 27. Apollodorus and Eratosthenes

both reckoned twenty-seven Olympiads from Iphitus to Corœbus, which

number is testified by Aristodemus of Elis and Polybius, ap. Euseb.

Armen. p. 141. Scalig. p. 39. Callimachus, however, only reckons

thirteen Olympiads between these two eras. Perhaps this is to be

explained by supposing that the Olympiad of Corœbus was the first of

_four years_, whereas the former Olympiads had contained _eight

years_ (book II. ch. 3. § 2.); in which case we have 13 × 8 + 4 =

108. On this Cleosthenes, see Phlegon Trallianus apud Meurs. Op.

vol. VII. p. 128. et Schol. Plat. Rep. V. p. 246. 7.

1994 Aristomedes reigned thirty-five years, according to the Armenian

Eusebius, and Syncellus, in the list in p. 165; and not thirty

years, as is stated in Syncellus, ib. p. 164.

1995 Sosibius ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 327. gives sixty-four years

for the reign of Charilaus and thirty-nine for that of Nicander, and

places the first Olympiad in the thirty-fourth year of Nicander; and

this appears also to be the computation of Pausanias, who therefore

carries the reign of Theopompus six Olympiads lower than Eusebius.

In Pausanias likewise the successor of Polymestor, the contemporary

of Charilaus, is the contemporary of the first Messenian war.

1996 Vol. I. p. 104, note g.

1997 Those who with Eusebius place the foundation of Syracuse in Olymp.

11. 4. and that of Leontini in Olymp. 13. 1. must assume that Lamis

the Megarian founded Trotilus and Thapsus in the _same_ year, and

went from Thapsus to Megara. Why then, it must be asked, does not

Thucydides (VI. 4.) say that Lamis went to the Chalcideans at

Leontini ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον that he had founded Trotilus, as he states

that he remained ὀλίγον χρόνον at Leontini, if Thucydides meant that

all these events should be understood to follow in so very rapid a

succession? At the same time the author acknowledges that though the

arguments of Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. II p. 265. ed. 2, for the

founding of Syracuse in Olymp. 11. 4. have not convinced him, they

have shaken his former conviction: and he adds the following remark

in favour of that opposite opinion. If Syracuse was founded in

Olymp. 5. 3., the founding of Camarina must be placed in Olymp. 39.

2. (Thuc. VI. 5.) Camarina, according to Scymnus v. 293, was

destroyed forty-six years afterwards, _i.e._ in Olymp. 50. 4. Now it

appears from the authentic catalogues of the conquerors at the

Olympic games, that Parmenides of Camarina was victorious in the

stadium in Olymp. 63. Camarina had not at that time been rebuilt; he

could therefore only have been so called from his native place;

which would (according to the assumed dates) have been then

destroyed forty-nine years. It must, however, have been uncommon for

men of fifty to be victorious in running. If, however, we place the

foundation of Camarina in Olymp. 45. 1, and the destruction in

Olymp. 56 (with the Schol. Pind. Ol. V. 16.), the whole receives a

greater degree of probability. This argument, however, is not

conclusive.

1998 This is the date of Eusebius. Pausanias, however, makes Alcamenes

live till the 10th Olympiad, but without much authority, as the date

is given in the romantic narrative of Myron.

1999 Euseb. Armen. p. 167. Pausanias represents Theopompus as still alive

in the 15th Olympiad; as he follows Tyrtæus, who calls this prince

the conqueror of Messenia, b. I. ch. 7. § 10. Yet it is not

_absolutely_ impossible that Tyrtæus might have used this expression

as meaning that Theopompus contributed largely to the final result,

without having actually completed the subjugation. The chronologists

followed by Eusebius appear to have adopted the Messenian tradition,

that Theopompus was killed during the war (according to Myron in the

last year but one), vol. I. p. 159, note h, at the sacrifice of a

ἑκατομφόνιον, according to Clemens of Alexandria (Protr. p. 36.

Sylburg. Euseb. Præp. Evang. IV. p. 126 C.), who, however, has a

very confused notion of this sacrifice; from which, and from the

testimony of Sosibius the Lacedæmonian mentioned above, in p. 446,

note l, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “according to

Sosibius,” starting “Sosibius ap. Clem.”] I infer that the

authorities of Eusebius in this part of the history no longer

followed the public register of Sparta.

2000 According to Thucydides, with reference to the date Olymp. 5. 3.

2001 Polydorus was honoured as a hero by posterity, as his τιμαὶ (Pausan.

III. 3. 2.), the use of his portrait as the state seal ib. (11. 8.),

and his house being bought by the state (ib. 12. 2.) sufficiently

prove.

2002 B. I. ch. 6. § 7.

2003 B. I. ch. 8. § 2. Plutarch, de sera Num. vind. 7. p. 231, errs

greatly in placing the victory of Teletias the Cleonæan ἐν παισὶν at

the Pythia (after Olymp. 47.) before the reign of Orthagoras.

2004 B. I. ch. 6. § 8.

2005 Who also took refuge in Sparta, the protectress of aristocracy,

Plutarch Lysand. 1. Some Heraclidæ, however, still remained in

Corinth, b. I. ch. 6. § 8. With regard to the epoch, the dates from

Diodorus of the kings and ninety prytanes of Corinth, agree

completely with the best testimony as to the time of the Cypselidæ.

Strabo’s 200 prytanes have arisen from a confusion with the number

of males in the clan of the Bacchiadæ. See vol. I. p. 181, note u.

2006 Thuc. VI. 5. Compare the date of Syracuse, Olymp. 5. 3. The

Scholiast to Pindar. Olymp. V. 16, who places the foundation in

Olymp. 45. and Eusebius, reckon from Olymp. 11. 4.

2007 According to Thucydides, with the date Olymp. 16. 4.

2008 This victory cannot well be placed _earlier_, because Megacles, who

was a party leader at Athens, from about the 54th to the 60th

Olympiad, could have hardly come forward as a suitor before this

time, (the other Athenian suitor, Hippoclides, was archon in Olymp.

53. 3.); nor _later_, because the Cypselidæ were not then in power,

as is evident from Herod. VI. 128.

2009 On the computation of the Pythiads, see Boeckh. Expl. Pindar. Olymp.

XII. p. 206. It does not however seem probable, as Boeckh supposes,

that the ἀγὼν χρηματίσης took place in Olymp. 48. 3.: but I suspect

that Pausanias, knowing practically that the Pythiads were to be

counted from Ol. 48. 3, placed the first Pythiad in this year; not

perceiving that the first Pythiad was an ἐνναετηρὶς, or octennial

period, as is evident from the Parian marble; whence in the argument

to the Pythians, for μετὰ χρόνον ἑξαέτη, I would correct ἐνναέτη;

although the fault, if it be a fault, is of old standing.

2010 Orchomenos, p. 374, where for 60 write 50. As some misapprehensions

have arisen on the passages relating to this event, I may be

permitted to make the following remarks. I. The three passages of

Pausanias, V. 63. V. 10. 2. VI. 22. 2. on the ἀνάστασις of the

Pisans, evidently refer to the same event; and consequently the

second of them should be interpreted thus: “_the statue of Jupiter

is made from the plunder gained at the time when the Eleans overcame

Pisa_.” This is the explanation of Dodwell, Annal. Thuc. p. 137.

otherwise Voelckel, Ueber den Tempel des Olympischen Jupiters, p. 6.

Krueger de Xenoph. Vita. II. In Strabo VIII. p. 355, C. the ἱσχάτη

κατάλυσις τῶν Μεσσηνίων cannot be the war of Olymp. 81; since the

Pisans could neither have had the management of the games at that

time, nor any Nestoridæ been in existence at Pylos. But he must mean

the subjugation of Messenia after the 30th Olympiad, after which

time the Lacedæmonians perhaps assisted the Eleans in gradually

weakening Pisa, until in the 50th Olympiad it became completely

subject. A more precise date for the distinction of Pisa may be

gathered from the strange statement of the catalogue of the Olympiad

in Eusebius according to Africanus, that the Pisans celebrated the

30th and the 22 following Olympiads (vid. ad Ol. 30); if we

understand it to mean that the Pisans had a share in the celebration

of the Olympiads until their destruction. According to this, Pisa

was destroyed in Olymp. 52.

2011 Diog. Laert. I. 98.

2012 In later times, however, a certain T. Statilius Lamprias, the son of

Timocrates Memmianus derives his origin from Perseus (through

Hercules) and the Dioscuri, Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1124; as

also a M. Aurelius Aristocrates, the son of Damænetus, hereditary

priest of Hercules and the Dioscuri at Sparta, declares that he is

descended from Hercules in the 48th, and from the Dioscuri in the

44th generation, ibid. No. 1353. and see Boeckh on No. 1340.

2013 That Pausanias (III. 7. 5.) errs greatly in assigning this battle to

the reign of Theopompus (about Olymp. 2-16.) is proved by his own

statement that Perilaus, the son of the Argive warrior Alcenor, was

a conqueror at the Nemean games (b. I. ch. 7. § 16); for no

conquerors at those games are mentioned before Olymp. 53. Plutarch

Lac. Apophth. p. 233, states that the battle took place in the reign

of Polydorus (about Olymp. 7-17.), Solinus VII. 9. in Olymp. 10, 4.

737 B.C.

2014 To this war, which must be placed about Olymp. 60, should probably

be referred the inscription on the helmet found at Olympia, which

formed part of a trophy, Corp. Inscript. 20. 29. cf. Addend. p. 885.

ΤΑΡΓ[ει]ΟΙ ΑΝΕΘΕΝ ΤΟΙ ΔΙϜΙ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΘΕΝ.

2015 Herod. V. 46. cf. Plutarch. Lycurg. 20. That Dorieus did not fight

against Sybaris may also be proved chronologically.

2016 Lacedæmonian envoys to this tyrant are mentioned by Plutarch, Lac.

Apophth. p. 245.

2017 According to Herod. VI. 33. See b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

2018 Perhaps in Olymp. 71. 3. in which case Diodorus XI. 48. has

confounded Anaxilas’ government of Messana with his government of

Rhegium.

2019 The oration of the supposed Thessalus, in Epist. Hippocrat. p. 1294.

ed. Foës. states, that “the king of Persia demanded earth and water

(493 B.C.), which the Coans refused (contrary to Herod. VI. 49.);

that upon this he gave the island of Cos to Artemisia to be wasted.

Artemisia was shipwrecked, but afterwards conquered the island.

During the first war (490 B.C.), Cadmus and Hippolochus governed the

city; which the former quitted when Artemisia took the island.”

2020 The fall of this town was preceded by a great plague, according to

Diomedes, p. 484. ed. Putsch, who mentions Hiero instead of Gelo. It

is to this time that Corsini, Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 110, refers the

elegy of Theognis to those who had escaped the siege of the

Syracusans, mentioned in Suidas in Θέογνις. It appears probable that

in the words εἰς τοὺς σωθέντας τῶν Συρακουσίων ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ, a

slight transposition should be made, (viz. ἐν τῇ τῶν Συρακουσίων

πολιορκίᾳ,) as at this time Syracuse was only the besieging and

never the besieged party.

2021 B. IV. ch. 7. § 2.

2022 Euryanax was the son of Dorieus, according to Herod. IX. 10. But why

was he not king before Leonidas, if Dorieus was the eldest son of

Anaxandridas? Perhaps because a Heraclide who left his native

country lost his right to the throne. Plut. Agesil. 11.

2023 On the unfortunate skirmish of the Megarians and Phliasians with the

Theban cavalry (Herod. IX. 69.), see the splendid eulogium contained

in the Megarian epigram. Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 1050. Mus.

Crit. Cant. vol. II. p. 616.

2024 In Pausan. III. 14. I. I correct τέσσαρσιν for τεσσαράκοντα, which I

cannot reconcile with the time.

2025 The statements of Diodorus XI. 48. on the length of both these

princes’ reigns are quite correct; but are inserted in a wrong

place. According to Plutarch, Cimon. c. 6. the earthquake was in the

4th year of Archidamus (Olymp. 78. 3. 466 B.C.). Pausanias, IV. 24.

2. places it, pretty accurately, in the 79th Olympiad. Diodorus

incorrectly in Olymp. 77. 4. the first year of Archidamus.

2026 Vol. I. p. 208, note q.

2027 Pleistarchus, according to Paus. III 5. 1., died a short time after

he had become king, and therefore not much above the age of 30. His

mother Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, was a girl of 8 or 9 years, when

Aristagoras attempted to induce Sparta to join the Ionic revolt.

Herod. V. 51.

2028 According to the calculation of Thucydides. See Corsini Fast. Att.

II. 1. p. 207.

2029 It is to this that the offerings of the Megarians are referred,

mentioned in vol. I. p. 195, note k.