^{page 31 note 1} The final word of the line is ἄκικυς in our accepted text of Homer.

^{page 31 note 2} Here again, and in the succeeding examples, I am following L. and S. for my quotations.

^{page 32 note 1} The coexistence of the two forms μικρóς and σμικρóς in Greek is a difficult problem. Sentence phonetics seem to be responsible. See Meillet-Vendryes, , Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, p. 51Google Scholar; Schwyzer, , Griech. Gramm., p. 311Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 2} Thus the Scholiast on Apoll. Rhod. I. 955 εὐναίης ⋯λίγον λίθον ⋯κλ⋯σαντες finds it necessary to explain ⋯λίγον. μικρóν ἔφη, ὡς κα⋯ Ομηρος, ⋯λίγην τρ⋯πεζαν (Od. 20. 259) κα⋯ Θεóκριτος, ⋯λίγον κο⋯ρον (Id. 1. 147 ⋯λίγος τις κ⋯ρος). Possibly in his day there was already established the division of meaning found in Modern Greek (both spoken and written), where μικρóς = ‘small in size, short’, and ⋯λίγος = ‘small in quantity, few’.

^{page 32 note 3} L. and S. takes this as in ‘a sense between that of Size and Quantity’, but I dissent from that view.

^{page 32 note 4} There should be added here, with extension of meaning, the remarkable use in Hp. Virg. I ⋯θυμοτ⋯ρη κα⋯ ⋯λιγωτ⋯ρη φ⋯σις, where ⋯λίγος = ‘weak, deficient in strength’.

^{page 32 note 5} Latin. parvulus is too rarely used to be justly entered into comparison.

^{page 32 note 6} It is convenient to summarize the feelings of sympathy, etc., under good affect; and of antipathy, etc., under bad affect.

^{page 34 note 1} Hardie, W. R., Lectures on Classical Subjects (1903), ‘The Feeling for Nature’, p. 12Google Scholar, claims that Homer ‘rarely attributes any kind of feeling to inanimate Nature; one feels it to be very exceptional when the sea is spoken of as “foreboding” or feeling the approach of stormy winds’—Il. 14.17 ⋯σσóμενον κτλ. But this surely underestimates the importance of the personification of both natural phenomena and inanimate objects which we find in Homer. For examples see Stanford, W. B., Greek Metaphor, on ‘Animating Metaphor’, especially p. 12 and pp. 138–9Google Scholar. Metaphorical personification is plain in λ⋯ας ⋯ναιδ⋯ς (Od. 11. 598), as Aristotle noticed; and I think that it is this which also makes possible the use of μικρóς as the attribute of λίθος in Od. 3. 296.

^{page 41 note 1} The absence of ⋯λίγος from Sophocles no doubt helps to explain his high proportion of neutral uses of neutral uses of μικρóς. It also explains (and its validity is in turn supported by) his more frequent use of two synonyms of ⋯λίγος—πα⋯ρος(5 times in Sophocles, against 2 in Aeschylus and 3 in Euripides) and βαιóς (14 times in Sophocles, against 3 in Aeschylus and I in Euripides): both are poetical words, the latter post-Homeric.

^{page 41 note 2} So at Nub. 495 for time, Ach. 242 space, Eccl. 71 degree, Vesp. 1411 manner.

^{page 42 note 1} μικρο⋯ with the same sense occurs in prose in Xenophon and later writers.

^{page 42 note 2} Op. 360.

^{page 42 note 3} El. 414 ⋯π⋯ μικρóν.

^{page 42 note 4} For affective use in a later period, it is worth while to consult the note of Headlam on Herodas 6. 59.

^{page 42 note 5} 39.

^{page 42 note 6} Supp. 1130.

^{page 42 note 7} Eq. 387.

^{page 42 note 8} So notice the neutral use of σμικρóς and σμικρóτης in Anaxagoras, as in fr. I, to describe the principle of ‘smallness’. σμικρóτης is coupled and contrasted with πλ⋯θος ‘quantity’. Clearly ⋯λίγος, and ⋯λιγóτης (which Plato used with both the meanings ‘smallness’ and ‘fewness’), would have been too ambiguous in such a context.

^{page 43 note 1} So 3. 4. 2 ⋯óντα αὐτòν λóγου οὐ σμικρο⋯.

^{page 43 note 2} 5.113.

^{page 43 note 3} I. 96. 3; 9. 67.

^{page 43 note 4} Mr. W. R. Smyth has kindly drawn my attention to several passages in Thucydides with examples of the use of οὐκ ⋯λίγος in litotes, which have sometimes been taken affectively. (I) 2.8.I ⋯λίγον τε ⋯πενóουν οὐδ⋯ν ⋯μφóτεροι: Poppo-Stahl notes ‘⋯λίγον i.e. μικρóν’, and Jowett follows this interpretation with his version ‘on neither side were there any mean thoughts’; also Foster Smith (Loeb) with ‘nothing paltry’. I would take ⋯λίγον neutrally, and translate ‘the designs of both sides were on an immense scale’: the meaning of ⋯λίγον οὐδ⋯ν ⋯πινο⋯ is ‘to think “big”“’. (2) 7. 87. 6 οὐδ⋯ν ⋯λίγον ⋯ς οὐδ⋯ν κακοπαθ⋯σαντες (of the fate of the Athenian captives at Syracuse): it seems to me that ⋯λίγος puts the fact of ‘prodigious suffering’ (Jowett) objectively—compare Thucydides' parallel description of the event in this same passage as an unprecedented disaster for Athens and an equal triumph for Syracuse, (3) 8. 15. 2 ⋯λίγον ⋯πρ⋯σσετο οὐδ⋯ν ⋯ς τ⋯ν βο⋯θειαν τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν χίον: as in (I), nothing was done ‘on a small scale’. Thus I think that, in these and other passages, Thucydides has a neutral use of of οὐκ ⋯λίγος.

^{page 43 note 5} This is counting as one closely related forms such as μικροθυμία and μικρóθυμος.

^{page 45 note 1} A note may be added here on morphology, especially that of the by-form μικκóς.

The form μικκóς occurs in Ionic, Doric, and Boeotian. The parent form is taken by Boisacq (s.v. μικρóς) and Brugmann, , Griech. Gramm., p. 66Google Scholar, as *μικ-Fος: cf. Μίκυθος, Μίκυλλος, Μικ⋯λος. But it is at least as likely that –κκ– is an example of the popular gemination of consonants (a possibility which Boisacq admits in a footnote), This is seen above all in affectionate names and children's words—see Schwyzer, , Griech. Gramm., p. 315Google Scholar—such as ἄττα, ἄππα, ἄπφα, π⋯ππα, τ⋯ττα: μ⋯μμη: ν⋯ννα, ν⋯ννος: τίτθη. Also, what is especially worth noting, in τυτθóς ‘little’. It can hardly be coincidence that two words for ‘little’, μικκóς and τυτθóς, show consonant gemination. τυτθóς is more frequent than μικρóς in Homer, where it is mainly applied to persons; less common in later Greek, and especially rare in prose. It is certainly affective.

From μικκóς there was formed *μικκικος (-χος), the base of μικκιχιδδóμενος (μικ-) which is found in Doric inscriptions denoting a boy in the third year of training, or ten years old. *μικκικος is of interest in showing a diminutive termination added on to what had itself originally been, as an affectionate by-form, the equivalent of a diminsutive, but had lost that meaning.

By contrast with this comparative wealth of formations from the stem of μικ–, it is important to note that from ⋯λίγος there was made no diminutive and no affectionate form. Clearly the meaning of the word did not encourage it.