^{page 135 note 1} And in some other ways; e.g. in the form of pasta.

^{page 135 note 2} On this subject, and on others arising in this article, cf. Jasny, N., ‘Competition among Grains in Classical Antiquity’, Am. Hist. Rev. xlvii (1941–1942), 747 ff.Google Scholar; The Wheats of Classical Antiquity (The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1944)Google Scholar; Wheat Prices and Milling Costs in Classical Rome (Wheat Studies of the Food Research Institute, Stanford University, California, vol. xx, no. 4)Google Scholar; and, above all, Jardé, A., Les Céréales dans I'antiquié grecque (Paris, 1925Google Scholar; only vol. I, La Production, has been published), which, though in some respects superseded by Jasny's work, still contains much that is of value. Grain is, of course, also grown for beverages (e.g. beer, whisky) and as fodder, but this is irrelevant here.

^{page 135 note 3} This term is here used in a rather unorthodox way to include all ‘naked’ wheat; cf. the preceding article.

^{page 135 note 4} Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, s. ‘Frumentum’ (Rostovtzeff), vii. 126 ff.; and—much more recently—s. Σîros (Heichelheim), Supp.-Bd. vi. 819 ff.

^{page 136 note 1} Its etymology is obscure; cf. Boisacq, Dictionnaire étymologiqw ⁴, s.v.: Hehn's attempted connexion between it and slav. žzito (Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere ⁶, p. 536; cf. Schrader’s comments, ibid. 538) cannot be maintained. The initial ante-vocalic s suggests a late introduction, but it is interesting to find that the word (and some of its com pounds) has been identified in the Minoan Linear B Script.

^{page 136 note 2} Il. 19. 306; Od. 9. 87; , II. 19. 705; Od. 3. 479; , Od. 4. 745; 7. 264.

^{page 136 note 3} , e.g. Il. 24. 625; Od. 9. 6; 12. 18.

^{page 136 note 4} As Jardé, p. 1 f. n. 2.

^{page 136 note 5} Especially since were also distinguished from it; e.g. Od. 3. 480.

^{page 136 note 6} s.v.: .

^{page 136 note 7} In one of the two senses of this word; cf. below, p. 140. The -wheat equation is so well established that the evidence requires no discussion.

^{page 136 note 8} e.g. Hdt. 7. 23; Thuc. 4. 26. 3.

^{page 137 note 1} This is not contradicted even by passages like Xen. An. 5. 4. 27, where(evidently in its generic meaning) is specified aswith reference to one particular store of grain among the Mossy-noikoi. Similarly the wordis probably used in its generic sense in Thuc. 7. 87, although we are told by Plutarch (Nic. 29) that the grain in question was in fact On the other hand these passages show that great care is needed in using the context for purposes of this argument.

^{page 137 note 2} 2 introd.; cf. 3. 1. 10 and Jardé, p. 3, n. 3. All passages where translates the Latin frumentum (e.g. in (cf. Cass. Dio 54. 1. 17) for cura frumenti dandi and in Edict. Diocl. (cf. below, p. 139, n. 10) 1. 1) are ignored at this point since there the meaning of frumentum is more relevant than that of : that the two words are normal translations of each other is too certain to need discussion.

^{page 137 note 3} H.P. 8. 2. 3.

^{page 137 note 4} References are given in detail by Jardé, p. 3, n. 2. The present comments on these papyri are based on Jardé's note.

^{page 137 note 5} is another grain mentioned in the papyri, but it is ruled out because it is opposed toin one of them.

^{page 137 note 6} This is significant because a similar measure of barley would normally, owing to the husks, contain less grain, and its price would therefore tend to be lower. (In Diocletian's Edict the ratio is 6:10.)

^{page 137 note 7} [Dem.] 34. 39:

^{page 137 note 8} The evidence for this is contained in section 38 which presumably refers to the events of 336 B.C.

^{page 137 note 9} 6. 22.

^{page 137 note 10} i.e. roasted or parched: this roasting was part of the hulling operation necessary with grains such as barley.

^{page 138 note 1} Cf. C.Q. xliii (1949), 114Google Scholar. Only in Plat. Rep. 2. 372 b does take first place—probably because of its greater ‘simplicity’.

^{page 138 note 2} H.P. 7. 1. 1; cf. 1. 3. 1; 6. 1. 1; 7. 9. 3. The other sub-group is

^{page 138 note 3} Some of these (especially the millets, ) would now be classified as cereals.

^{page 138 note 4} The use of die word ‘corn-like’ may itself be significant. If had not already had a specific sense it could itself have served as the name of the subdivision.

^{page 138 note 5} —i.e. husked wheats; cf. above, p. 129.

^{page 138 note 6} H.P. 8. 1. 1; cf. C.P. 4. 1. 2; 4. 7. 4; H.P. 8. 6. 4.

^{page 138 note 7} Except possibly when used in a clearly extended meaning to cover all provisions of, e.g., an army: there can be no question, as there is in the case of of its original meaning being ‘food generally’.

^{page 138 note 8} Yet Cassiodorus (in Ps. 4. 7) and Isidorus (Diff. 1. 247) would derive it from frumen, the larynx.

^{page 138 note 9} Dig. 50. 16. 77: ‘Iulianus scribit frumentum id esse quod arista in se teneat, recte Galium definisse: lupinum vero et fabam fruges potius dici, quia non arista sed siliqua continentur, quae Servius apud Alfenum in frumento contineri putat.’

^{page 138 note 10} Presumably Servius Sulpicius, the contemporary of Cicero. The commentator Servius, incidentally, includes frumenta among fruges and not vice versa; ad Am. 1. 178: ‘errant qui discernunt frumenta a frugibus. nam … etiam frumenta fruges vocari’; cf. ad Georg. 1. 74: ‘frumenta sunt omnia quae ex se emittunt aristas.’.

^{page 139 note 1} e.g. Caes. B.G. 7. 72. 4; Hirt. B.G. 8. 3. 2; Varr. R.R. 1. 16. 2; Gaius in Dig. 7. 5. 7; etc.

^{page 139 note 2} Cf. Plin. N.H. 18. 58; 60; 151; Pallad. R.R. 6. 1. 1; Hieron, . in Ezech. 4. 9Google Scholar; etc. Passages such as Plin. N.H. 18. 48 (‘frumenta ut triticum, hordeum’) show that the wider sense continued in use even after the narrower had become common.

^{page 139 note 3} Div. in Caec. 30: ‘queritur Sicilia … cum frumentum sibi in cellam imperavisset, et cum esset tritici modius HS ii, pro frumento in modios singulos duodenos sestertios exegisse’; cf. in Verr. 3. 73, 75–76.

^{page 139 note 4} e.g. Plin. N.H. 18. 48 (above, note 2).

^{page 139 note 5} e.g. Plin. N.H. 1 ind. 18. 11–13 (‘far, triticum, hordeum’); cf. Cat. Agr. 134. 1.

^{page 139 note 6} e.g. Plin. N.H. 18. 49.

^{page 139 note 7} e.g. Ev. Matth. 13. 25; 1 Cor. 15. 37. Cf. Hieron, . in Ezech. 4. 9Google Scholar (here St. Jerome comments on his other identifications and compares them widi die LXX, but evidently regards comment on the equation as superfluous). See also Vulg. Deut. 8. 8; 2 Reg. 17. 28.

^{page 139 note 9} N.H. 18. 61 init.: ‘tunicae frumento plures: hordeum maxime nudum et arinca set praecipue avena.’ Cf. Theophr, . H.P. 8. 4. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 10} 1. 1 (C.I.L. iii. 801 ff.; more recent fragments are added in the edition by Graser in Frank, Tenney, Economic Survey, v. 318 ff.Google Scholar). Hordeum is mentioned separately, and far cannot be included in frumentum, since it would inevitably command a lower price because of its husks. (Cf. above, p. 137, n. 6. Far does not appear in the Edict, but its place as a husked wheat is taken by spelta in 1. 7–8.)

^{page 140 note 1} 2. 7. 1. This, of course, is hardly a botanical criterion.

^{page 140 note 2} 2. 6. i. Unfortunately the relevant sentence (‘prima et utilissima sunt hominibus frumenta triticum et semen adoreum’), if read on its own, lends itself to mistranslation, and it is mistranslated by the Loeb editor. From the context it is clear that prima et utilissima agrees with seminum genera in the preceding sentence, so that the correct interpretation is, ‘first and most useful for men (among the various kinds of seed) are the grains, namely triticum and semen adoreum’ (not ‘the grains of first importance are …’). The rest of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of these grains only—semen adoreum and far being interchangeable terms (cf., for instance, Col. n. 2. 74) and triticum including siligo, as often—and in the next chapter Columella goes on to discuss legumina.

^{page 140 note 3} N.H. 18. 60.

^{page 140 note 4} e.g. ibid. 49.

^{page 140 note 5} R.R. 6. 1. 1.

^{page 140 note 6} This has long been recognized, and the source material was assembled long ago in an article by Voigt, M. (‘Die verschiedenen Sorten von Triticum, Weizenmehl und Brod bei den Römern’, Rhein. Mus. xxxi (1876), 105 ff.Google Scholar). Jasny, (Wheats of Class. Antiquity, p. 57 and passimGoogle Scholar) distinguishes four senses of triticum, but only the second and third of these seem to the present writer established; cf. also next note.

^{page 140 note 7} Jasny, (Wheats of Class. Antiquity, pp. 55–56Google Scholar) quotes a number of passages in which he takes the name triticum to refer to a husked wheat or to the grain of such a wheat after hulling. Among these there is only one (Plin. N.H. 18. 97, referring to the pounding, i.e. hulling, of a grain called triticum) which the present writer finds con vincing, together with a post-classical pas sage (not mentioned by Jasny) in Isid. Orig. 17. 3. 6. In view of the etymology of the word, on which cf. Varr. L.L. 5. 22. 106, it seems impossible to believe that this usage—attested only by two writers who knew little about what they were describing— was ever correct.

^{page 140 note 8} Not quite, since it did not include einkorn (): but einkorn was unimportant (cf. Plin. N.H. 18. 81 and 93); there is no evidence for its presence in Europe in classical antiquity; and it did not even have a Latin name.

^{page 141 note 1} e.g. Ov. Fast. 2. 519 ff.; 6. 180, 313; Plin. N.H. 18. 83 (‘primus antiquis Latio cibus’) and 108; Varro apud Non. 152. 14, Müll, (‘nee pistoris nomen erat nisi eius quiruri far pinsebat’).

^{page 141 note 2} Olck in Pauly-Wissowa, vii. 1276 gives as an alternative Greek name for bar ley, but the word denotes a product rather than a plant (cf. C.Q. xliii (1949), 113 fF.Google Scholar). Whether it is to be connected with , ‘whole’ (cf. C.Q. xliii. 116Google Scholar n. 10 and Buttmann, Lexilogus, Eng. tr. 448 ff.) or with , ‘to grind’, as is suggested by the parallel Latin mola (cf. also Liddell-Scott-Jones s.v.), it is certainly not parallel with otherwise (Hdt. 1. 160; cf. Strato Com. 1. 35) would be an odd tautology. But the association of with (like that of the mola salsa with far; cf. Paul, ex Fest. 124 L.) is old, and we never hear of made from a grain other than barley; cf. Horn. Od. 12. 356 ff.; Plut. Q.Gr. 6. (There is a similar parallel between in Theocr. 2. 18 and mola in Virg. Eel. 8. 82.)

^{page 141 note 3} Jasny, , Am. Hist. Rev. xlvii. 756 n. 16Google Scholar (but cf. Wheats of Cl. Ant. 53–54): Rostovtzeff (Pauly-Wissowa, vii. 127), whom Jasny quotes, merely admits that frumentum does not always mean either ‘wheat’ or ‘main grain’.

^{page 141 note 4} This article is closely connected with that on ‘Husked and “Naked” Grain’ which precedes it, and the acknowledgements made there (p. 134 n. 1) should be re peated here.