A Latent Fragment of Hecataeus' Γενεαλογίαι

Author(s): M. L. West
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Dec., 1962), pp. 200-201
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/709362
Accessed: 07/04/2010 12:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
200 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
AESCHYLUS,
THElibations brought by Atossa to Darius'
tomb consist of white milk from an un-
touched cow, gleaming honey distilled by
bees,water from a virgin spring, a draught
unmixed from a wild mother (the ancient
vine), fragrant fruit of the ever-leafy yellow
olive, and plaited flowers, earth's children.
Two notes are struck in this passage-first,
ofunviolated sanctity and remoteness from
human usage; I do not think I have seen
itmentioned in this context that the Greeks
werenot in the habit of drinking cow'smilk ;I
moreover, the milk Atossa brings is from a
cowwhich has never been yoked. The honey
is treated by no human hand but distilled
by the bee, symbolic of purity ;2 the water is
from avirgin spring. It is not entirely clear
inwhat form the olive offering is brought-
whether it is fruit or expressed oil3-but here
andin connexion with the flowers the idea of
Nature is stressed. Secondly, there is a note
ofvivid colour; the milk is white, the honey
gleaming, the water is not given its Homeric
epithet A?VKOS, which has just been used, but
comes from a virgin spring, suggesting that
it is crystal clear. The olive (in whatever
A LATENT FRAGMENT
Sch. Hom. Od. x. 139 (ii. 457. 26 ff. Dind.)
IIepa,1'QKeavoOIev )v Ovy6'*rlp, 'HAlovbe
yvv17. 'HAiov be Kal IIepaf]s Al^rr*s KaY,
KfpKg~.'Halobos be Ka[ relv 'EKder*v
I?pao'rlta Aeyei.
DINDORF refers to Hes. Th. 4II, where it is
recorded that Hecate was born of the mar-
riage between Perses, son of the Titan Kreios,
and Asterie, daughter of the Titan Koios.
But Hecate is not called HepaSts there,
or anywhere else in the extant poems and
fragments of Hesiod. Among the lost poems
ascribed to him, it is probable that only the
Catalogueswould have been quoted under
Hesiod's name in the Homeric scholia (cf.
J. Schwartz, Pseudo-Hesiodeia,p. 87, n. 4);
and in the Cataloguesa quite different account
of Hecate was given-she was identified with
Iphigeneia (fr. I 00 Rz.). In view of which it
is most unlikely that she was called IIeparrts
there either.
I References in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v., and
Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. (I take evrrorovand
TrorTvto imply only that the ghost would
consume the offerings.) No doubt fioVTvpov
got its name from the mistaken belief that it
differed from ,vpos only in being made with
cow's milk and not in method of preparation.
2 References in Haarhoff, 'The Bees of
PERSAE 6I I f.
form) is yellow, and perhaps it is not too
fanciful to discern a suggestion of varied
colourin the'plaited flowers'. Itis with these
twonotes in mind that we should consider
thecurious offering from the wild vine. Pliny
(JV.H.xxiii. I9) writes: 'labrusca quoque
oenanthen fert satis dictam [? 8], quae a
Graecis ampelos agria appellata, spissis et
candicantibus foliis, geniculata, rimoso cor-
tice, fert uvas rubentes cocci modo, quae
cutem in facie mulierum purgant, etc.' We
are dealing not with vitis vinifera but with
vitissilvestris, thegrapes of which do not vary
incolour, according to the type of vine, but
are of one colour only4--as Pliny sees it, a
shade of scarlet. This harmonizes with the
colour-theme of the passage; and a further
point about vitis silvestrisis that its grapes are
toopoor in the necessary carbohydrates to be
susceptible to fermentation, and what Atossa
bringsis not wine but a non-alcoholic liquid
onlydrunk for medicinal purposes.5Naturally
in such a context it is unmixed.
A. D. FITTON BROWN
UniversityCollegeof NorthWales, Bangor
OF HECATAEUS' FewaAoylaL
If, on the other hand, the scholiast had
meant merely that according to Hesiod,
Hecate was the daughter of Perses, he would
have said something like 'Ha,o os be Tr)v
'EKarr*vIHepaovyeveaAoyEf.Cf. sch. Lycophr.
I175. He would certainly not have used the
patronymic.
There is a yet more serious difficulty. This
informationabout Hecate in Hesiod, whether
correct or not, has no relevance to the
Oceanid Perse, who is the subject of the
scholium. In the context, the only relevant
information about Hesiod would be that he
called her, not Perse, but Ilepar,ts-as he
does in Th. 356 and 957. This is exactly the
information that is given if we disregard the
words Kal ~r?v 'EKcdrrTv, and read only
'Harno8osbe JJepa'qta Aeyci.
But how to account for Hecate's unwel-
come epiphany ? The simplest explanation is
is a corruption of Kge
that giel r'fv ~EKdTXrrv
Virgil' (Greeceand Rome,vii [1960], 155 fft.).
3 I am inclined to agree with Wilamowitz
and Groeneboom, comparing ~avO~ ''
eAal in the somewhat similar passage, Eur.
I.r. 633.
4 This statement is confirmed by Hyams,
IllustratedLondonNews, 7 Jan. 1961.
5 So Forbes in Historyof Technology, i. 275.
 THE CLASSICAL
'EKaTafos. We know from three references in
the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius (F.G.H.
I F I7-I8) that Hecataeus wrote of the
Argonauts' expedition, and this would pro-
vide the obvious occasion for him to name
Aeetes' mother. He is several times cited in
company with Hesiod, e.g. sch. A. R. iv. 266
REVIEW 201
and 284; Lyd. de mens. iii. 5. A)yey will
naturally have replaced Meyovm.
The corrupt version, with Hecate for
Hecataeus, was already before Eustathius;
cf. p. I65I. 54.
St. John's College, Oxford M. L. WEST

A GLOSS ON &&vrfTpov
IN L. & S.9 the following gloss occurs:
'&wLVOpos,O = iniclaris (?)'. It is clear that
ervrOpos is a mistake for edrdvlrpov; the 0 is
even a possible alternative to T, since vco>,
'spin', is a non-Attic form of veo. But L. & S.
have an obsolete explanation of dJLv,lrpov
as 'distaff'. The correct interpretation was
given by C. Robert in 'E+. )tpX. 1892, 247 ff.:
it is a type of knee-pad for spinners. Ancient
grammarians (Poll. vii. 32, x. 125; Hsch.)
treat edrrv&rpovand ovos as pieces of equip-
ment used by women spinning, and the
Etym. Magn. 362. 20 says that the epinetron
was placed on the knee. In 'Suidas' the form
is vCT,pov,also wrongly rendered 'distaff' in
L. & S. A number of pottery epinetrahave
been found, in the shape of two-thirds of
a cylinder, hollow but with one end closed.
For Robert's interpretation of the painting
on an epinetrondating from the time of the
Peloponnesian War see R.E., s.v. Epinetron;
for Bliimner's interpretation, R.E., s.v.
Lana; bibliography in E. Pfuhl, Malerei und
Zeichnungi (I923), 46-47. The scaly upper
surface of the epinetronis thought to have
served for rubbing or smoothing the wool.
The 'donkey', gvos, was probably the same
as e&rlv,lrpov. Bliimner sees in ovos a foot-
stool shown on the vase-painting; this seems
unlikely, as such a use of the word is un-
paralleled. One of the senses of ovos is 'wind-
lass', a horizontal revolving cylinder, so
that it could have been applied to anything
cylindrical, such as the epinetron.It is dis-
puted whether pottery was the customary
material or whether the pottery epinetraare
only decorative. Assuming the latter to be
true, it has been suggested that wood was the
usual material, but would not leather have
been more apt ?
There remains the question of iniclaris.
This must surely be a corruption of genic(u)-
laris; the initial in- is reminiscent of Spanish
hinojo, derived from genuclum.The substan-
tive genicularisclearly existed in late Latin,
for ps.-Diosc. iii. Ioo, p. 1I1, I W., quoted
by the T.L.L., has the gloss AvXvtsaTreSa-
vmjTlKz ... 'P~xaroi 7yewiKovAdpis [so ac-
cented], referring to the Rose Campion
(Lychnis coronaria); cf. Du Cange, s.v.
genicularis.Moreover in medieval French its
derivative genouilleredenoted the knee-piece
of a knight's armour.
O. A. W. DILKE
Universityof Glasgow

THE ARCHON OF 497/6 B.C.

THE author of the new life of Pindar (P.
Oxy. xxvi. 2438) asserts that Pindar won a
victory at Athens in the archonship of
Archias, and then goes on to refer to the
archon Habron (458/7): o 8e Ylpo.,v d[rr'
4pXl]ov ~arlv ?e(aypaKoaros.He next refers
to the archon Chaerephanes (452/1): dwo
~fipwvos Xa~tpe?ba[vrm]i[S]oioso. If both
counts are made in the same way, the neces-
sary conclusion is that he thought Archias
was archon in 497/6. As there is no other
evidence for this year, he should be believed
and Archias added to our lists as com-
pensation for Habron, once thought to be-
long to 518/7, but shown by Lobel in his
notes on this life to be a confusion with the
archon of 458/7. This seems a simpler solu-
tion than that adopted by Lobel, which
requires a different kind of count in the two
cases and the belief that either Archias here
or Hipparchos in Dion. Hal. v. 77 is a corrup-
tion. The archon may be the )tpX~as Katos of
Beazley, A.B.V., p. 665, but the name is
common in all periods.
ChristChurch,Oxford D. M. LEWIS

)trOvalwv IIoATe&a 22. 4

IN c. 22 the author of Ath. Pol. deals with the
introduction of ostracism. First we read in
22. I that Cleisthenes introduced various
new laws a*oxa[dtxevovTOV ,r;7rOovs,among
them the law on ostracism. This demagogic
4598.8
motive is more suited to the constitutional
reforms than to ostracism, and indeed the
mention of the latter is very much an appen-
dage to the sentence, serving rather to lead
into the new topic lhan to connect back to
p