No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The scholiasts supposed that it was Zeus, not Strife, who dwells γαíνσ Έν ŕίζησι, and Paley has punctuated the line accordingly. I do not in any case doubt that he is wrong, but if the Theogony is evidence, he can almost be proved so. In the Theogony the γης ŕίσα;ι are a kind of suburb of Tartarus, from which the author does not very clearly distinguish them. In his useful though somewhat desultory gazetteer of those districts he says that Styx dwells there apart from the gods, and that Iris only comes down when there are oaths to be administered in Olympus. Clearly Zeus is not at home in such a place. Strife herself is not enumerated in the Theogony among the residents, but her family is. Whatever she may be elsewhere, both in the Works and Days and in the Theogony she is the daughter of Night; and in the Theogony not only Night but also her two sons Sleep and Death reside in the district. Strife may appropriately keep them company.
page 113 note 2 726 sqq.
page 113 note 3 225.
page 113 note 4 Lyrics from Elizabethan Songbooks, ed. 1913, p. 210.
page 113 note 5 Proposed apparently by D. Heinsius on the basis of Proclus's note: óπoîoσ θν έκάστψ τυγχάŋ βίoσ άπο;δομένoςς. Rzach's critical note fails to record the conjecture, though it is adopted by Paley and Sittl.
page 114 note 1 Cf. Heracl. fr. 97 Bywater, Plat. Crat. 398B, E.M. p. 35, 24.
page 114 note 2 See Goodwin, , Moods and Tenses, p. 318Google Scholar.
page 114 note 3 β. 58 υά γάρ Ëπ à⋯ʼnρ | οįος Όδύσεύς Ëσκν àρήν àπò οĨκου | ημείς δ νύ ⋯L τοîοı àμυνÉμεν β.272, ξ. 491, ρ 537, χ 234.
page 114 note 4 Pind. Ol. ii. 107 is debated. On Pindar's other examples see Gildersleeve, in Am. Phil. Soc. Trans. 1878, p. 11Google Scholar.
page 114 note 5 So also in Sophocles, Herodotus and Thucydides: see Birklein's statistics in Schanz's, Beiträge, 1888Google Scholar, Heft 7. ProfessorGildersleeve, (l.c. p. 8)Google Scholar writes: ‘What was the infinitive to the Greek himself? If anything definite, an accusative it would seem. … The use of the infinitive as an object led in time to its use as a subject.’
page 114 note 6 υ. 52, Hes. fr. 164. Grammarians (except Birklein, who thinks it corrupt) seem to have overlooked our passage.
page 115 note 1 Lehrs, (Quaest. Eþ. p. 1931)Google Scholar proposed a lacuna after 416 on the ground that χρώς means ‘skin,’ and was only used of the body where the surface of the body was concerned. This is probably true of the common use in connexion with clothing and armour (e.g. ψ. 67 περἱ χροι ειματα εστο), but is too sweeping in view of such phrases as Ω. 414 oὐύδÉ τί οί χρὡς σ⋯πεται oὐδε μιν εὐλαί | εύθoυσιν.
page 115 note 2 N 279, 284. P 733. ϕ 412.
page 115 note 3 Varro, , R.R. i. 19Google Scholar. 1. Cato's estimates are for vineyards one pair per 100 iugera, for oliveyards one pair per 80 iugera (R.R. x. xi.).
page 115 note 4 Cf. 608. Of course Hesiod may be thinking of one plough and its team as a unit or minimum (contrast however the singular at 405). The plurals elsewhere in the poem, however, prove nothing, for he uses the plural even of a single yoke (434, 468). Still this indication as to the size of his farm would be of very slight value if anything more definite were forthcoming.
page 115 note 5 N.H. xviii. 178 iustum est froscindi sulco dodrantali iugerum uno die … si sit fcuilitas soli. Probably therefore it is much the same as the Spanish measure iugum, defined as quod uno iugo boum uno die exarari posset. (Varro, , R.R. i. 10Google Scholar. 1, Plin, . N.H. xviii. 9.)Google Scholar See Hultsch, further, Metrologie2, p. 841Google Scholar, Mommsen, , Röm. Gesch7. i. p. 2041Google Scholar. On γὐμς see schol. ad I. 579, E.M 242. 23, Hesyeh. s. vv. πεντηκοντbγυος τετράγυον, Eustath. pp. 776Google Scholar. 60 1572. 18, 1851. 62. Smith, Dict. Ant. ii. 161aGoogle Scholar. If the modern explanation is right, τετρ⋯γυοoν at σ. 374 (and Ap. Rhod, . iii. 412, Orþh. Arg. 874)Google Scholar is puzzling, but those who think τετρ⋯γυον to be a day's ploughing reduce Meleager's reward to a very small holding. An acre is also a day's ploughing, larger than the iugerum, perhaps owing to the employment of a larger plough team. See Seebohm, F., English Village Community, pp. 124, 387Google Scholar.
page 116 note 1 Columella, 1. 3. 10, id. praef. 14, Pliny, , N.H. xviii. 18Google Scholar, Val. Max. iv. 3. 5.
page 116 note 2 Seebohm, , op. cit. pp. 27Google Scholar, 73, 389.
page 116 note 3 Ibid. p. 65.
page 116 note 4 See Smith, , Dict. Ant. i. p. 86 aGoogle Scholar.
page 116 note 5 Script. Gromat. pp. 115, 136, 152, Lachm, Google Scholar.
page 116 note 6 R.R. i. 34. 1. Cf. Pliny, , N.H. xviii. 204Google Scholar.
page 117 note 1 At Eratosth, . Catast. 35Google Scholar (whence Liddell and Scott quote στoλlς ⋯κρ⋯ = ⋯κρoστ⋯λιoν) στυλ⋯ς should apparently be read.
page 117 note 2 Eur, . I.T. 289Google Scholar, cf. Aesch, . Ag. 52Google Scholar, Lucian, i. 151; and in Latin, Lucr. vi. 743, Verg, . Aen. i. 301Google Scholar, vi. 19, Ov, . A.A. ii. 45Google Scholar, Met. v. 558, viii. 228, Apul, . Met. v. 25Google Scholar, Cic, . N.D. ii. 125Google Scholar, and conversely Prop. iv. 6. 47.
page 117 note 3 Alex. 559. swan, Milton'sGoogle Scholar, more naturally, at least to an ear, English, ‘rows with oary feet’ (P.L. vii. 439)Google Scholar, and so Ausonius, , Epist. iii. 13Google Scholarremipedes anates.
page 117 note 4 Plut, . Mor. 22Google Scholar f., E.M. 36. 24.
page 117 note 5 iii. 122b, c.
page 117 note 6 See further Picart, , Cérémonies et Coutumes (Amsterdam, 1723), i. p. 113Google Scholar; Burton, , Arabian Nights, ii. p. 326Google Scholar.
page 118 note 1 Commentators quote a saying of Pythagoras παρ⋯ θυσ⋯αν μ⋯ ⋯νυχζoυ, the context of which may be illuminating; but I do not know what the context is. Goettling gives a false reference and other commentators none. I cannot find the saying, and have some suspicion that it may be a figment, due to some confusion with the apophthegm quoted below, n. 5.
page 118 note 2 Ov, . F. vi. 230Google Scholar. Cf. Frazer, , Taboo and the Perils of the Soul, pp. 258Google Scholar sqq.
page 118 note 3 Petron. 103, 104: Frazer, however, connects this prohibition with the power of cut hair to storms, raise (op. cit. p. 271)Google Scholar.
page 118 note 4 N.H. xxviii. 28.
page 118 note 5 Orestes cut his hair: Strabo, p. 535, Paus. viii. 34. 3, Frazer, , op. cit. pp. 283Google Scholar sqq. A Hebrew in prayer, according to Picart, (Cérémonies et Coutumes, i. p. 107)Google Scholar, ‘doit éviter autant qu'il se peut, de bâiller, de cracher, de se moucher, de laisser aller des vents;’ but that perhaps a matter of deportment rather than of superstition. The uncleanness of nail parings is perhaps implied in the saying quoted by Hershon, (Talmudic Miscellany, p. 49Google Scholar, cf. Picart, , op. cit. p. 113):Google Scholar he who trims his nails and buries the parings is a pious man; he who burns them is a righteous man; but he who throws them away is a wicked man, for mischance might follow should a female step over them. Pythagoras's injunction (Diog. Laert. viii. 1. 17: ⋯πνυχ⋯σμασι κα⋯ κουρας μ⋯ È ουρείν μηδÈ ÈΦίrασθαί) may be due only to the common fear of danger to the original owner of the nails.
page 118 note 6 Mor. 352 e.
page 118 note 7 Plut, . Mor. 8191Google Scholar e; Macrob. v. 19. 13; Frazer, , op. cit. pp. 225Google Scholar sqq.