ἌΛΦΙΤΑ—A Note

L. A. Moritz

doi:10.1017/S0009838800028081

ἌΛΦΙΤΑ—A Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

L. A. Moritz

Show author details

L. A. Moritz: Affiliation:
Merton College, Oxford

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 43 , Issue 3-4 , July 1949 , pp. 113 - 117

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800028081 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 113 note 2} 73. 16, cf. below, p. 116, n. 4.

^{page 113 note 3} 1885. 11.

^{page 113 note 4} Cf. Ebelilng, Lexicon Homericum, S.V.

^{page 113 note 5} ‘Hulled’ grains in modern terminology are those whose rachis breaks during threshing before the grains can be freed from the closely fitting cover glumes. These include most barleys and the ‘hulled’ wheats, such as emmer (Triticum dicoccum Schübler) and spelt (Triticum spelta L.). The common and durum wheats (T. vulgare Host and T. durum Desfontaines) are ‘naked’; i.e. their rachis is sufficiently tough, and their cover glumes sufficiently loose, to allow the grain to be freed from its hulls during threshing. It seems certain that πυρóς was ‘naked’ wheat, and that ζείά and λρα were ‘hulled’ wheats, but their exact identification in terms of modern botany is one of the most difficult problems in this field.

^{page 113 note 6} See O.E.D.

^{page 114 note 1} I am here assuming (with Hdt. 2. 36) that ζειά and λυρα were identical or, at any rate that the poet made no distinction between them. Each of these words is incidentally, confined to one only of the Homeric epics, though ζείδωρος (for which cf. Plin. H.N. 18. 82) occurs in both.

^{page 114 note 2} Cf. references in Heichelheim's article on σῖτος in Pauly–Wissowa, Suppl. vi, col. 826 f., to which may be added Il. 11. 756 (Buprasion), Od. 16. 396, 19. 292 (Dulichion), Il. 12. 314 (Xanthus plain), and references to the island of Syrie (Od. 15. 406) and the country of the Cyclopes (Od. 9. 110); cf. also Il. 11. 69; Od. 19. 112.

^{page 114 note 3} e.g. Il. 5. 196, 8. 188, Od. 4. 41; but also geese (Od. 19. 536, 553).

^{page 114 note 4} Od. 12. 358: οὐ γρ ἔχον κρῖ λενκòν üσσλμσν π νηóς, and 20. 108–9: ἄλϕιτα τεχονσαι κα λεατα, μυελòν νδρν. … πε κατ πυρóν ἄλεσσαν. These passages, especially the seconda, show clearly that the raw material awaiting preparation is meant.

^{page 114 note 5} Cf., for example, almost any dictionary article on these words.

^{page 114 note 6} Cf. below, p. 116, n. 2.

^{page 114 note 7} Od. 12. 358 (above, n. 4); Il. 20. 496.

^{page 114 note 8} e.g. by Heichelheim (loc. cit.).

^{page 114 note 9} Cf. above, n. 1 (the use of ζεδωρος has not here—or by Heichelheim—been taken to prove the presence of wheat).

^{page 114 note 10} Cf. Schliemann, , Ilios (London, 1880), p. 320Google Scholar; Wittmack, , ‘Samen aus den Ruinen von Hissarlik’ (Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschqft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1890, pp. 614 ff.)Google Scholar; Virchow, , Beiträge zur Landeskunde der Troas (Aus den Abhandlungen derkgl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1879), pp. 68 ff.,186Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 11} 1. 37, with which cf. ibid. 21. 24, 38. 10.

^{page 114 note 12} Ed. Kühn, vol. vi, p. 506: κ τν νων κριθν ϕρυγεισν συμμτρως τò κλλιστον ἄλϕιτον γνεται. τοτων δ ποροντες νοτε κκ τν ἄλλων (sc. κριθν) αὐτ σκευζομεν cf. Dioscorides, , M.M. 2. 108Google Scholar(for which see below).

^{page 114 note 13} So, for example, Curtius, G., Principles of Greek Etymology⁵ (London, 1886), § 399Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 14} Cf. in Greek λϕς (e.g. , Plat.Tim. 85a)Google Scholar, λϕοπρσωπος and λϕρυγχος (Hippiatr. 13).

^{page 114 note 15} Il. 11. 640, 18. 560; Od. 10. 520, 11. 28, 14. 77.

^{page 115 note 1} Cf. Gal. vi. 504 K.: κλλισται δ εἰσιν αἱ λευκα μετ τ πτισθναι ϕαινμεναι (sc. κριθα) with common modern valuations of flour and e.g. Juvenal 5. 70f.: ‘tener et niveus mollique siligine factus servatur domino’.

^{page 115 note 2} Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque³, s.v.

^{page 115 note 3} Etymologisches Wörlerbuch der albanesischen Sprache, p. 94.

^{page 115 note 4} Goth. hvait-i and hveit-s; Germ. Weizen and weiss; cf., for example, Curtius, loc. cit.

^{page 115 note 5} References for both this and Hermann's view are given by Ebeling, Lexicon Homericum, s.v. λϕηστς.

^{page 115 note 6} e.g. Od. 1. 349, 13. 261.

^{page 115 note 7} e.g. Il. 6. 142.

^{page 115 note 8} e.g. Od. 2. 290.

^{page 115 note 9} = ἄλϕιτον, h. Cer. 208.

^{page 115 note 10} Op. cit., § 398.

^{page 115 note 11} So, for example, Liddell and Scott, cf. Eust. 1885. 11, quoted p. 113.

^{page 115 note 12} Cf. Od. 20. 108–9 (above, p. 114, n. 4), and λετρς, ib. 105;, λετρεύω ib. 7. 104.

^{page 115 note 13} Cf. Plat, Rep. 2. 372bGoogle Scholar, Hipp, . Acut. 37Google Scholar, and esp. Hdt. 1. 200: καì ἃς μν ἄν βοληται αὐτν ἄτε μζαν μαξνενος ἔδει, δ ἄρτον τρóπον πτσας (referring to fish), which suggests a difference between μζα and ἄρτος analogous to that here suggested for ἄλϕιτα and ἄλευρα.

^{page 115 note 14} Cf. esp. Od. 10. 235 and 290; perhaps also ἄρτος, if cognate with ραρσκω, though the ancients were certainly unaware of this connexion.

^{page 115 note 15} 20. 108–9 (above, p. 114, n. 4); Monro (ad loc.) notices this, but he too feels compelled by Plat. Rep., loc. cit. to assume that ἄλσιτα in Homer necessarily implies barley.

^{page 115 note 16} For references see above, p. 114, nn. 2 and 3.

^{page 116 note 1} Cf., for example, Diosc, . M.M. 2. 108Google Scholar, Gal. vi. 507 K.

^{page 116 note 2} ἄρτος (17. 343, 18. 120), λεíατα (20. 108), πρνος Or πρνον (15. 312, 17. 12, 362), the last being the only Homeric example of a ‘product’ name etymologically connected with a ‘plant’ name.

^{page 116 note 3} Three times in the Iliad (11. 631, 640; 18. 560) and twelve times in the Odyssey (2. 290, 354, 355. 380; 10. 234, 520; 11. 28; 14. 77, 429; 19. 197; 20. 108, 119) according to Gehring's Index Homericus.

^{page 116 note 4} Liddell and Scott, in noting this usage (like (E.M., loc. cit.), give ‘groats generally’ as a secondary meaning of ἄλϕιτον: it is the main contention of this note that ‘groats generally’ is the primary meaning of the word.

^{page 116 note 5} Hipp, . Acut. (Sp.) 53Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 6} Id. Int. 23.

^{page 116 note 7} Orph, . Lith. 212Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 8} M.M. 2. 108, cf. Gal. vi. 474 K., Plut, . Mor. 397aGoogle Scholar, and e.g. κρíθινοι ἄρτοι (e.g. Gal. vi. 504 K.).

^{page 116 note 9} I hope shortly to be able to be more precise on what this difference was and to discuss in detail also the nature of the μζα (always closely connected with ἄλϕιτα), which, according to Athen. 4. 137e, stood in the same relation to ἄρτος in Solonic Athens as does bread to cake nowadays (cf. above, p. 115, n. 13, and esp. Jardé, , op. cit., pp. 123–4Google Scholar and notes).

^{page 116 note 10} e.g. Suid. s.v. οὐλοθυτεῖν: … οὐλς γρ ἔλεγον τς κριθς κατ ντíθεσιν τν ψαιστν … καì τς μν κριθς μχρι νν ἄλας χουσιν οἱ πιθὐοντες ταῖς σπονδαῖς …; cf. Ebeling, Lex. Hom., s.v. οὐλαí.

^{page 116 note 11} e.g. Il. 11. 631; Od. 2.355, 14. 429.

^{page 116 note 12} e.g. Ebeling, s.v. The use of μυλϕατος in this connexion helps little, since the meaning of this word is too uncertain (cf. , Plut.Q. Rom. 109Google Scholar).

^{page 117 note 1} Cf., for example, Plin, . H.N. 18Google Scholar. 81 ff.

^{page 117 note 2} Cf., for example, Schulz, A., Geschichte der kultiuierten Getreide (Halle, 1913), pp. 38 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 117 note 3} e.g. Plut. 219, Nub. 106.

^{page 117 note 4} Especially as figurative uses tend to lag behind actual practice: straw, for instance, is no longer essential for making bricks.

^{page 117 note 5} This article is connected with a study on Milling and Breadmaking in Classical Antiquity which is being undertaken for the National Association of British and lrish Millers, to whom I am indebted for permission to publish it. I am grateful also to Dr. G. E. F. Levens and K. J. Maidment of Merton, and to the Editors of the C.Q. for some valuable suggestions after reading the article in manuscript.

On the general subject of cereals in the Graeco-Roman world see Jasny, N., The Wheats of Classical Antiquity (1944)Google Scholar, and id., ‘Competition among Grains in Classical Antiquity’, in Amer. Hist. Rev., 1941–2, pp. 747 ff.

^{page 177 note 6} xix. 76 K.

^{page 177 note 7} Cf., for example, his definition, in another work, of the κρμνα contrasted with ἄλøiτα in the present passage (xviii B. 151 K.: κρμνα καλεȋται τ τoȋς λøτoiς μøερμενα τς πεøρυγμνης κρiӨς μρiα μεγλα, δiαπεøευγτα δηλoντi τν ν τῇ μλῃ κατεργασαν κρiβ).

^{page 177 note 8} See above, p. 116, n. 4.

Article contents

ἌΛΦΙΤΑ—A Note

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests