Chapter IX (8)

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.