| Perseus · Tufts |
| |||
| Classics: Classics collection contents About the Classics collection Greek Tools: Plot: Display text chunked by: book chapter section (default) Contents: |
W. W. How, J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus
Your current position in the text is marked in red. Click anywhere on the line to jump to another position.
Commentary on Herodotus, Histories. book 2, chapter 46:section 2. hêdion: a weakened comparative; cf. Latin ‘ haigas. H. and other Greeks (e.g. Diod. i. 84; Pindar v. i.) say the beast was a goat, and they are confirmed by the nome coins (cf. B. M. Cat. Alexandria, p. 347); the monuments, however, show the beast as a ram. Perhaps the monuments are wrong (Sourdille, R. p. 166); cf. the mistake of representing both wolf and dog by a jackal. The beast was the incarnation (not the symbol as H. thinks; cf. outi toiouton) of Osiris, considered as the giver of fruitfulness; so it is called ‘the lord of maidens, the begetting ox’. H. is wrong in connecting it with Pan; the confusion is due to the fact that Min of Chemmis (c. 91 n.), whom the Greeks usually identified with Pan, is goat-headed. toutôn: i.e. tôn aigôn; the sentence repeats sebontai ktl. ek de toutôn heis, si vera lectio, translate ‘Of the he-goats there is one especially honoured, and when he dies, great mourning’, &c.; but this is very harsh. The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text. This text is based on the following book(s): Buy a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com: vol. 1; vol. 2 |