Book 4 — Footnotes (continued 4)

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.