^{page 155 note 1} ‘Heresies III’, Greece and Rome for Oct. 1935, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Olympians, vi. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} Essays and Addresses, p. 84.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} Pind, . Ol. vi. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Pythians, iv. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} Od. xi. 320.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} l. 659.

^{page 157 note 1} Iph. in Taur., 1. 300.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} Defined by Müller, Max, in Three Lectures on the Science of Language, trans. London 1891, lecture i, p. 27Google Scholar, as ‘what remains of a number of words after we separate their formative elements’, i.e. something very like ύλη without είλος.

^{page 158 note 1} Il. xix. 362.

^{page 158 note 2} ‘… resonant plangore cachinni’, 64, 274.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 3} Stephanus connects the Latin gelu gelidus, i.e. the brightness of frost and later coldness. Stephanus has much more support for the brightness theory.

^{page 158 note 4} ll. 1175 sq.

^{page 159 note 1} A gloss in Hesychius brings out that both ἄνθος and γελα̃ν were first named from one strangely similar external characteristic: γελεĩν . . λάμπειν, ἀνθεĩν. Of course I am not denying that γελα̃ν often means to laugh. My point is that that meaning is only secondary and derivative to the brightness concept.