¹ See Wilamowitz, Herdkles 1. 189.Google Scholar

² I will not conceal the factthat F. E. Kind proposed (Herm. xliv. 624) to readKáttov.

³ Other sixteenth-century Latin versions, which thereare several, are less accessible and I have not pursued them.

⁴ Theparty envisaged in my first paragraph will now have to take intoaccount P. Oxy. 2221, a papyrus of the first century A.D.which contain a fragmentary commentary on Th. 377–95 andin the lemmata substantial fragments of the lines interpreted. Itsagreements with MSS. of the common class against Paris, suppl. 247(II attest at least the antiquity of the variants, and it presents aproblem of its own in 391 f.

¹ See I below, s.w.àváppivov, γoγγúλos,δaχμos, πai's hopes for hisbotanical revision (Pref., p. vii) were too sanguine.Thiselton-Dyer, on whom he had laid his cares, wrote (J.Phil, xxxiii. 204) ‘little has been done to explain themass of plant names in Nicander. Meanwhile they have drifted intolexicons merely with meanings which tell nothing’.

² Dr.Johnson on the Shrewmouse: ‘A mouse of which the bite isgenerally supposed venomous and to which vulgar tradition assignssuch malignity, that she is said to lame the foot over which sheruns. I am informed that all these reports are calumnious, and thather feet and teeth are equally harmless with those of any otherlittle mouse.’ Plinm (N.H. 8. 227, 29. 88) and some others(e.g. [Diosc] Ther. 8, Philum. 33) regard them withdisfavour; Aristotle (H.A. 604b19) says merely that their bites maycause blisters in draught animals. So far as I am aware thereputation of the wood-louse is untarnished by such slanders.

³ Ihave every sympathy with those who make mistakes in N., havingprobably made a good number myself. Since however some of those, inthe Lexicon are very gross, I think it right to say that the majorityof these are inherited from ed. 8, beyond which I have not thought itneces sary to inquire.

¹ I cite Σ Al. hence, ΣTh. from H. Keil's text printed in OSch.'s edition.

² See s.v. below. 3 For earlier examples in comp. and sup.adj. see Kühner-Blass 1. 554; add Od. 10. 279, 12. 11,)(probably), and Hes. Th. 408. For participles restricted totwo terminations see Th. 180, 329, Al. 528. Al. 528. 4But in the same epigram (for)should be accepted.

¹ Ilearn from Dr. U. R. Evans that cupric which is black, and cuprousoxide, which is red, is red, may be thrown off from copper plateswhen cooling; and if any victim of an echidna opts for one of these Ishell not gainsay him. In the fragment of Numenius (quotedbyΣ) which N. is paraphrasing the words ares andΣ understood χ. to be the plant.

² This meaning seemsindicated by the context, but Mr. Scholfield points out to me that onthe analogy of, rainy (Al. 288), wooded ispossible.

¹ The entry áw (C) requires reconsideration in anycase. It gives ‘satiate’, with one reference outof eight in Homer and omitting those with ace. alone (II. 24.211) and with dat. for gen. (II. 11. 818). Then ‘II.mostly intr.’, with four references out of five.2 Bentley's Adversaria, now in the British Museum, are in themargins of a copy of Gorraeus's edition. Those on Th. arepublished in Museum Criticum, i. 370, 445: those on Al.were transmitted to OSch. by E. Mehler ex apparatu Gronoviano.OSch. not unnaturally queried this word, but, whatever Bentley meant, it is what he wrote.

³ But if anyone wishes to know he must consult in either edition of Schmidt.

¹ The words are the inquirer s.v. is also directed (via) to.They are therefore to.

² L. says ‘scum of boiledmilk’ citing two passages neither of which mentions milk. 3OSch. accepted from Bergk (see Hippon. fr. 2; Ahrens,Dial. Dor. 532; L. s.v.), but there is no trace ofv in N.'s MSS.

¹ ‘Pramnian’ was apparentlydry and astringent (Ath. 1. 30 B), and as according to 162 it couldbe produced from the ‘hedanian’ grape, the statement ofΣ that the latter was very sweet is difficult to believe. Thesame note says that the ‘psithian’ is another name for‘Pramnian’, and Diosc. 5. 5 describes an astringent madefrom this grape, but gathered before it is ripe. Eubulus howeverspeaks (fr. 138) of sweet ‘psthian’. ‘in this connexion does not occur elsewhere, but Hsch. may berelevant.

² This is essentially JGSch.'s view also. I take theprepositional phrase with.

³ . This disregards and leaves and unintelligible. Eutecnius (to say nothing of other difficulties) also disregards them.

¹ This is a convenient place to register a protest against L.'shabit of directing the inquirer to his destination by the mostroundabout route: If after looking up and and finding himself left to choose from four alternatives for he has sufficient energy to look up he will find noword of small rampion but ‘a plant like basil. 2. ’and, finally, that is ‘an unidentified plant’. 2The pl. Theoc. 17. 77 also calls for mention.

¹ ThoughSirThiselton-Dyer, W. did not make thismistake in J. phil. xxxiii. 204.Google Scholar

² Whetherconnected with I Will not guess.

³ Knox (Hesdlam,Herodas, lvii) proposed and gruel seema morelikely than sap.

¹ This is but ‘.in plants Gal. 12. 420’ is not very helpful. I supposechestnut-beards may be the silky fibres which protrude fromthe pointed end of a sweet chestnut.

² N. continues . This plant, usually , is called withoutindication of gender in Ps.-Diosc. 4. 190. L. says , butN.'s relative suggests that it is fem.

³ And in Th. 414, which is no doubt spurious.

⁴ A detailed analysis will be found inRev. Arch., 3rd ser., xxvii. 321. 1 The connexionwould be plain at least for one passage if at Q.S. 4. 402 thetext were secure. 2 Ebeling in Lex. Hom. s.v. favouredsplendidus in the Homeric passages, and conclusions closelysimilar to my own were reached for all six by Goebel, A. in Philol. xix. 424Google Scholar. 3 Cf. Diss.Vind. vi. 57. 4 Cf. J. Phil. xxxiii.201.Google Scholar

⁵ Keller (Thiere d. cl. Alt. 78) held thatthese words, which occur in conjunction also at Al. 324, Call.H. 5. 91, mean fallow or roe deer, but I do not thinkthat his passages (p. 364, n. 25) estabilsh thatever =. His view that , sometimes at any rate, meansfallow-deer is better founded.

¹ They might be said , but I think OSch. was right in substituting fromΣ— and so s.v. does L.

² On Cat. 63. 5. Gorraeus hadmade the same suggestion.

¹ Ion Trag. 4 π. has nocontext, but seems much more probable. At Th. 662 seems to means squat.

² But the subject might be 3 See Blümner, Tech. i². 66. 1 Also atAl. 491, where seems preferable to. Those who(with OSch.)choose the latter must add to L.

¹ Of the fewreferences to N. which I have noted in L.'s Addenda threerelate to this frag., and I have cancelled in consequence a note on eat ap, may be supported by Al. 183 f.whichshould be cited, but Athenaeus here paraphrases with , andserve, if the meaning is possible, seems rather more suitandable. The text however is hardly secure. The entry s.v. I do not understand.1 An alternative explanation in Σ is and Eutecnius says KareoKtva I do not understand the first, but both seem to regard fiotpa as meaning grade or quality Quite apart however from the difficulty of so interpreting the word, it is again the substance, not one sort of it, which is graded. Moreover, the quantities of all other ingredients in this prescription are specified. It is certainly odd that N. should name three qualities unless he in but perhaps he means professionally prepared rose-oil rather than your family recipe.

² The only other passage cited is Anaxandr. 41. 13, where it means a vessel, not a measure of capacity. L. does not recognize this meaning, which may go with the fem. gender, and I can supply no other example of either unless the festival, counts for the meaning.

³ N.has and substantively else where (Al. 241, 452) and where he adds a noun, it is (Al.155) or (Al. 203), though would no doubt serve. If at Al. 239 he wrote which is doubtful, ṗ. presumably means rose-tree. It would be easy to write in 103, but this as described in Diosc. 1. 99. 3, Gal. 14. 133 is a solid substance, and one would expect with it a measure of weight, not of capacity.

⁴ is pass, in Fr.71. 5, and elsewhere N. has only active forms of this verb, but it would take a nice grammarian indeed to distinguish his med. from his act. in meaning.

¹ The second century B.C. seems to me a more probable date than the third for the extant poems, but for the present purpose this problem is virtually irrelevant.

² In a few cases where L. gives different meanings (e.g. āpov,) the reader might like to know which L. supposed N. to mean.

³ J.H.S. lxii. 94.

⁴ Where it is plainly neither ‘shearwater’ nor ‘Iāmmergeier’

⁵ ‘Ion. for’, but as there is no entry for some might like also to know the meaning.

⁶ It is surely improbable that this word means in sing, ‘ridge of a chain of hills’, but in pl. ‘gully, glen’ I should have thought that in either number it meant col.

⁷ And enter s.v., whence we are referred only to.

¹ Meaning perhaps irascible.

² Also Numen. ap. Ath. 7. 295B.

³ v. I above, s.vv.

⁴ And recognized by L. s.v.

⁵ v. L. s.v.

⁶ See p. 117 below.

⁷ ‘To be almost bursting with, ’ is much to over-translate.

⁸ And Od. 5. 426, al.

⁹ OSch. printed from II, but the crasis (if he meant) is difficult.

¹⁰ Add also A.P. 7. 200. ‘Pi. (?) Oxy. 426’ is B. Fr. 4 Snell.

¹ e.g. as gloss in Hsch., in ṗ here.

² 0. Schneider thought that in 268 was used (like) of the ship's hull, and certainly it is not clear why N. should distinguish ship and dinghy. Perhaps he is thinking of the discontinuity of movement in the cerastes.

³ This type of movement is conditioned by the surface over which the snake is progressing, and does not seem very suitable to the rocky slopes which, according to N., the haemorrhois frequents. Philum. 21 expressly says that it moves straight forward, and differs from N. as phototo its coloration. Gossen-Steier (RE ii A 522) suggested Vipera latastei, but the habitat of this here, snake (Spain, Morocco, Algiers) seems adverse. The symptoms produced by its bite (to which i owes its name) do not help, for haemorrhage, haematemesis, and haematuria are common sequelae of snake-bite (Osier, and McCrae, , System of Medicine, i. 261).Google Scholar

⁴ Ditmars, R. L.Reptile Book 461.Google Scholar

⁵ Crotaline or ‘side-winding’ movement is discussed by Mosauer, W. in Zool. Anz. lxxix. 201Google Scholar Zool. Jahrb. (Abt. Zool. Physiol.) lii. 205Google Scholar, Science lxxvi. 583Google Scholar, and by Gray, J. in j. Exp. Biol. xxiii. 113. The first of these papers contains phototo graphs of a cerastes in motion, and of its track.Google Scholar

¹ Lucan (9. 716) does better—spinaque uagi torquente cerastae.

² And in Al. But I think it may have been too hastily assumed that he follows only one. Among remedies for hemlock-poisoning unmixed wine is recommended at Al. 195 and again at 198 as though N. had there turned to his second manual. The same explanation would serve for the double mention of in Th. 843, 892 which drove O. Schneider to emendation, and of resin at Al. 546, 554, which caused J. G. Schneider to excise, and it would not be surprising if the subdivisions in N.'s lists of remedies (see p. 117, n. 1 below) But sometimes at any rate indicated a change authority.

³ For its function see Noguchi Snake Venoms 59.

⁴ At Al. 278 OSch. wrote but if this is right in principle I should go a step farther and prefer.

⁵ Cf. Diss. Vind. Vi. 67²

⁶ Al. 155, 531, 553.

¹ Unless is preferred to.

³ Buchholz-Peppm¨ller translate unconvincingly aus des Hades Tiefe emporgetaucht, zu seinem gerāumigen Palaste zurückkehrte.

¹ According to Dsc. 4. 68 the plant is and. He says nothing about itching gums.

² Th. 84; but at 645 also cited by seems more probable.

³ BRP² variants in MSS. of the common class, might lend colour— ‘and the lips, if closed’. But in this poet the easier is not apt to be the better reading.

¹ Al. 64, 178, 554, Th. 51, 66, 76, 520, 863, 896, 921. Similarly Th. 822 adding marine pests to terres trial, and Th. 145, 334 further varieties of snake.

² OnseeLehrs, Quaest. Ep. 322.Google Scholar

¹ Th. 894 is the sole example in N. of a line with hephthemimeral caesura only.