¹ The most important article is Saglio's (in Daremberg and Saglio's Dict. Ant. s.v. aratrum) but it is very inadequately illustrated. Some additional illustrations are supplied by Baumeister's article (s.v. Ackerbau) and by Dr. S. Müller's interesting paper Joug, Charrue et Mors (Mém. Soc. Roy. d'Ant. du Nord, 1902). The plough shown in Fig. 5 was reproduced in connexion with Hesiod by O. Lagercrantz in Comm. Phil. in hon. J. Paulson, pp. 190 ff., and the three vases (Figs. 1, 3, 6), by O. Jahn in Berichte, K. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1867, pp. 74 ff. I have reproduced in this paper all the important monuments figured in these articles and I have added a good many more. The earlier discussions by Ginzrot (Wagen u. Fahrwerke d. Griech. u. Röm. vol. i.) and Mongez, (Mém. de l'Inst. 1815, pp. 616 ff.)Google Scholar have proved of little service. R. H. Rau's Geschichte d. Pfluges (Heidelberg, 1845) I have not seen, but the figures reproduced by Meitzen (Siedelung u. Agrarwesen, i. p. 273) do not inspire confidence. H. Behlen's Der Pflug u. das Pflügen (Dillenburg, 1904) contains a useful summary of the Latin literary evidence but is more concerned with ploughing than with ploughs.

I am indebted for kind assistance in procuring illustrations to Dr. Zahn of the Berlin Museum, Prof. Neeb of the Altertumsmuseum in Mainz, Prof. Colini of the Museo di Villa Papa Giulio in Rome, Dr. Galli of the Florence Museum, M. Léon Dorez of the Bibliothèque Nationale, M. E. Babelon of the Cabinet des Médailles, Dr. Blinkenberg of Copenhagen and, in the British Museum, to the Keepers of the Greek and Roman Antiquities, the Coins, the British and Mediaeval Antiquities, and the Manuscripts.

² I shall say nothing in this paper of the Egyptian plough which differs considerably from the Greek and Roman. A paper on the subject by Schäfer, H. will be found in B.S.A. x. 127 ff.Google Scholar See further Erman, , Acg. u. aegypl. Leben im Alt. p. 569.Google Scholar

³ Some remarks on this subject by Tylor, E. B. will be found in J. Anthr. Inst.-1881, pp. 74 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Saglio reproduces from some other source a gem reputed to be in Florence which shows a plough apparently of this form. The drawing is unconvincing and as I learn on enquiry that this gem is not now in the Florentine collection I have not figured it.

⁵ It should be said at the cutset that it is not always easy to decide from the representations of how many pieces a plough is composed. I have classified them to the best of my ability, but ploughs of Forms II. and III. are so numerous that the transference of one or two examples from one class to the other is of no consequence, and I shall not stop to argue individual cases.

⁶ Berlin 6193, 6603: a third is Furtwaengler, , Ant. Gemm. xxix. 52Google Scholar (present owner unknown).

⁷ B. M. 187: a similar design Furtwaengler, Ant. Gemm. xv. 62.Google Scholar An actual example of a plough of this form exists. It was found at Papau in Prussia and is now in the museum at Thorn. The tail, which is missing, was inserted in a hole in the stock. See Ztschrft. f. Ethn. 1903, p. 716, Hoops, , Waldbäume u. Kulturpflanzen, p. 502.Google Scholar

⁸ Unless one or more of the gems figured in Pl. XVII. be Roman.

⁹ The whole plaque is figured in Blinekenberg Arch. Stud. T. ii.; A. B. Cook, Zeus, Pl. XXVII.

¹⁰ It is one of the two commonest types of Etruscan terracotta cists and specimens are very numerous. In the Museum at Florence alone are 28 (19–44 and two unnumbered from Chiusi). I have noticed others in the Faina Collection at Orvieto (7 specimens), Villa Giulia (4: 3960–3963), Bologna, and British Museum (3 each: B.M. D. 792–794). Others are in the Vatican, at Modena, Milan, Paris, Copenhagen, Oxford. The finest specimen I have seen is Villa Giulia 3960; the example figured is B.M. D 793. The subject is unknown. There seems no reason to suppose the warrior to be Echetlaeus, especially as the ἐχέτλη is the one part missing from the plough he wields. Ploughs of similar type occur on the Petrossa gold phiale (Arch. Zeit. 1872, T. 52).

¹¹ Besides this and the Louvre cup, there is a third b.-f. cup with ploughing scenes in the British Museum, Room of G. and R. Life 500. A fourth, in Florence, has on each side a group of men carrying what is thought to be a symbolical phallus-plough (Dieterich, , Muttererde, pp. 107 f.).Google Scholar This interpretation, though it is not free from difficulty, seems probable.

¹² This example is suspect and rests solely on Ginzrot's authority. The drawing was given to him by one Gazes, archimandrite of the Greek church in Vienna, a native of Meliaes which is also on the ‘island of Magnesia.’ I learu from Mr. A. J. B. Wace that Meliaes is on Mt. Pelion, so Ginzrot no doubt means the Thessalian district of Magnesia. There is nothing antecedently improbable in this plough and I see no reason to exclude it from the discussion, though the drawing is probably not reliable for details.

¹³ B.C.H. xxvii. Pl. I.

¹⁴ B.M. 182. B.M. 180 is an almost identical group of unknown provenance. Why one of the oxen in these groups should be reversed it is difficult to see. Müller figures a similar group in Copenhagen but without showing the position of the oxen.

¹⁵ On late coins the nearest to it are the ploughs of Leontini and Cnossos (Hill, Coins of Sicily, Pl. XIV. 15, B.M. Cat. Crete, Pl. VI. 13).

¹⁶ Ploughs are very rare on r.-f. vases; the only other example known to me is on a Boeotian vase with Triptolemus now in Berlin (Rubensohn, Eleus. Beitr. T. vii.)

¹⁷ B.M. 2038. On a coin of Pella of Imperial times the tail rises from a small projection at the heel of the stock; Imhoof-Blumer Monn. Grec. p. 87.

¹⁸ The Greek specimens are remarkably uniform in type. Since this paper was in print however my attention has been called by Miss E. Radford to a variant represented by a terracotta in the museum at Nauplia, said to come from Tanagra. I have not seen the specimen and have not full information about it. It is apparently without a pole and is dragged by harness (as is the modern Maltese plough). The oxen have on their backs a kind of secondary yoke attached to the neck-yoke by a cross-piece. The stock is also peculiar and seems to resemble somewhat that of the plough shown in Fig. 8. It is to be hoped that this example may be published.

¹⁹ From Hoernes, Urgesch. d. bild. Kunst Taf. xxxii. The drawing provokes, by way of contrast, citation of Virg. Ecl. ii. 66 adspice aratra ingo referunt suspensa iuuenci., Hor. Epod. ii. 63 fessos uomerem inuersum boues collo trahentes languido. Persius (i. 75) has: tua aratra domum lictor tulit, but is perhaps not to be taken literally.

²⁰ This example has the upward direction of the pole exaggerated as on the Bologna situla.

²¹ Cf. the plough which appears as a symbol on the coins of L. Piso (Babelon, , Monn. d. l. Rép. Rom. i. p. 293, 164).Google Scholar

²² Cato (R.R. cxxxv) distinguishes aratra romanica and campanica as suitable respectively for heavy and light soil. It is conceivable that this distinction may refer to the two types shown on the monuments, but Geop. iii. 1. 9, 11. 8, suggest that it is a difference of weight and size.

²³ It is not unlike certain primitive ploughs of Scandinavian countries: S. Müller, op. cit. pp. 21, 39.

²⁴ For example, on the coins of Iconium, Ninica, Berytus, and Sidon (Cat., B.M.Lycaonia, p. 5, n. 10Google Scholar; p. 117, n. 9; Phoenicia, p. 58, n. 51; p. 195, n. 301). These seem to be of Form IV. Ploughs appear also on Roman coins of Dyme (?) (Imhoof-Blumer, Monn. Grec. p. 165, 42)Google Scholar and Parium (ib. p. 251, 124, p. 253, 131) but of these I have not seen specimens. A Pompeian fresco published in Mus. Borb. v. 49 contains an object which may be a plough but the drawing is unintelligible and presumably inaccurate.

²⁵ If the line which projects diagonally backward from the share is meant to be part of this plough it is difficult to explain. Varro R. R. i. 29. 2: tertio cum arant iacto semine boues lirare dicuntur, id est cum tabellis additis ad uomerem simul et satum frumentum operiunt in porcis et sulcant fossas quo pluuia aqua delabatur, cf. Plin, . N.H. xviii. 49, 3Google Scholar; Pallad. i. 43. 1. a somewhat similar projection occurs on a plough in a late mosaic at Brading: Trans. R.I.B.A., 1880–1, p. 138 f.

²⁶ Lateran, , Mus. Christ. xiv. 7.Google Scholar Small photograph in Marucchi, Mon. Mus. Christ. Lateran. tav. lvii.

²⁷ The projections on the sides of the tail cannot be earth-boards as they point forwards. Possibly they are foot-rests to assist the ploughman in throwing his weight on to the share. A very similar plough (but without these projections) appears on a Roman sepulchral relief figured by Spon, Misc. Ant. p. 308, but I have been unable to trace the monument.

²⁸ From Prat Histoire d'Arlon, Pl. LXIV. I have not seen this example and have been unable to obtain a photograph of the relief.

²⁹ Fig. 10 is from a photograph taken at Ayasoluk near Ephesus. The actual example is Turkish rather than Greek, but I select it in preference to similar Greek specimens since the photograph shows the details unusually clearly. For the photograph reproduced in Fig. 11 I am indebted to the kindness of Dr. Ashby. It shows the plough suspended from the yoke for carriage, as described by Virgil, Ecl. ii. 66. This specimen has the perpendicular tail of the ancient plough.

³⁰ I am indebted to Dr. M. R. James for information with regard to some of the MSS. mentioned below.

³¹ Montecassino, 132 f. 10.

³² The curve survives in Cod. Paris. Grec. 533, f. 34 (eleventh century), where the plough has a large share and the pole is united to the tail by a cross-bar. This example is not unlike the two ploughs in the Gale Hesiod (saec. xiii.-xiv.) though these have a straight pole which springs from the tail.

³³ F. 19.

³⁴ B.M. Cod. Harl. 603, f. 51; similar designs on ff. 54 and 66. The implement shown on f. 21 I do not understand, though something similar appears on some Egyptian monuments. This MS. is English tenth cent but the miniatures are copied from the ninth cent. French Rheims Psalter now at Utrecht.

³⁵ Paris. Lat. 15675 (twelfth cent.: probably northern French) f. 3. Earlier examples, differing in some particulars, in the British Museum: Cotton Tib. B, v. f. 3, Jul. A, vi. f. 3, both eleventh century Anglo-Saxon. The lower margin of the Bayeux tapestry shows a similar plough with the ploughman seated between the wheels.

³⁶ Saglio (Fig. 438) reproduces from Caylus, Réc. v. Pl. LXXXII, an amulet which has on it a wheeled plough, but the antiquity of this piece seems to me so doubtful that I have not thought it worth while to figure it.

³⁷ N.H. xviii. 173 (see p. 274); cf. Servius ad Verg. Georg. i. 172 quoted below.

³⁸ So Anth. Pal. vi. 41. 104.

³⁹ N. 703, ν 32, σ 374.

⁴⁰ κ 352.

⁴¹ 1201.

⁴² Et. Magn. s.v. ζϵῦξαι.

⁴³ Soph. Ant. 341 and Schol., Lycophrou 817. Varro (R.R. i. 20. 4) states that in Campania, where the soil is light, cows or asses were used for ploughing: cf. Pliny, , N.H. viii. 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ I print the longer version of the note from the scholia in Cod. Par. 2727 (ed. Brunck). The shorter version, contained in Cod. Laur. xxxii. 9 and preferred by Merkel, agrees in all essentials.

⁴⁵ For the sake of convenience I have sometimes been compelled to divide notes into their component parts.

⁴⁶ It is correctly given by Photius, Suidas, Zonaras and Et. Magn. s.v. in addition to the passages quoted above. Hesych. gives the correct meaning and adds καὶ ἡ αὔλαξ καὶ ἡ σπάθη τοῦ ἀρότρου. For these meanings there is no other evidence nor are they intrinsically probable.

⁴⁷ Pollux's sentence ψ δὲ ὁ ζυγὸς ἐνήρμοσται ἔλυμα is incompatible with the rest of his account which makes his view of ἔλυμα quite clear. There can be no doubt that ῥυμός should be read for ζνγός as was proposed by Veckenstedt, E. (Philologue 1866, p. 559).Google Scholar In the last sentence of Moschopulus's note, γύης is used for the whole pole (γύης + ίστοβοεύς) as the ἱστοβοεύς does not occur in all ploughs the use is quite intelligible.

⁴⁸ Pollux seems to think that the back portion of the ἔλυμα was called ἀλύη.

⁴⁹ L. and S.'s reference for the form χειρολάβη will be more readily found in Philo, , Mech. Synt. iv. 76.Google Scholar 23 (ed. Schoene) but the passage has nothing to do with ploughs.

Hesiod's silence as to the share does not prove that his plough was without a share as he is considering only the wooden parts of the implement. There are in the British Museum plough-shares of the bronze age from Cyprus. For Roman shares see Lindenschmit, , Alt. uns. heidn. Vorzeit III. iv. 182Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ The handle Hesiod calls simply ἄκρον ἐχέτλης which perhaps implies something more like the form shown in Fig. 2 than the regular χερολαβίς in the diagram.

⁵¹ So also Schol. Hom. K. 353.

⁵² So Virgil speaks of curuum aratrum meaning, as we shall see, the curved γύης: cf. Lucr. v. 933, vi. 1253, Ovid. Her. i. 55.

⁵³ Eustathius p. 1732, 6, holds that the πηκτὸν ἄροτρον was earlier than the αὐτόγυον but that is merely because Homer does not mention the latter: cf. p. 955, 57.

⁵⁴ The etymology of ἔλυμα is uncertain: γύης is connected with γοῖον, γύαλον

⁵⁵ H.P. v. 4. 3.

⁵⁶ C.P. v. 9. 4.

⁵⁷ Hesiod's language is not quite clear and might refer also to the peg already mentioned, which fastens together stock and pole.

⁵⁸ Fr. 513.

⁵⁹ 817. The scholia there say αἱ τοῦ ζυγοῦ γλυφαι and quote the phrase from Callimachus.

⁶⁰ His paraphrase τὸν δρύινον πασσαλίσκον ἐλκέτω ὁ μέσος τῶν βοῶν λῶρος is nonsense if the peg is inserted in the yoke.

⁶¹ On the terracotta group from Tanagra the yoke is fastened to the pole by a peg and lashed, and the yoke of the Talamone votive plough is attached to the pole by a peg. In the Arezzo bronze the pole passes through a hole in the centre of the yoke. On the coin of Ti. Gracchus (Pl. XVII. 13) may be seen the κορώνη mentioned by Pollux and two projections which perhaps serve to secure the lashing.

⁶² As ποδὸς ἕλκειν P. 289, σ. 10. Proclus seems to have read μϵσάβψ with Triclinius, but the gen. is no doubt correct.

⁶³ Cf. Cato R.R. lxiii.: in aratrum subiugia lora, p. xvi.; funiculum, p. viii.

⁶⁴ Unless the enigmatic γλωχίς of π 274 is such a peg.

⁶⁵ The sentence in Proclus's note on 463 which begins εί δὲ γράφοιτο μετὰ τοῦ ν´ κ.τ.λ. seems to mean, ‘if we read μεσάβων for μεσάβψ then the ἔνδρυον is meant, and this might be called μεσάβων because it is between the oxen.’ This seems to imply μεσάβων as an adjective from μεσάβως an interpretation not given by any other commentator. Suidas's gloss is similar, but regards the word as a noun; it can hardly refer to the Hesiodic passage.

⁶⁶ On this subject Columella ii. 2. 22 is worth quoting: igitur in opere boues arcte iunctos habere conuenit quo speciosius ingrediantur sublimes et elatis capitibus, ac minus colla eorum labefactentur iugumque melius aptum ceruicibus insidat, hoc enim genus iuncturae maxime probatum est. nam illud, quod in quibusdam prouinciis usurpatur ut cornibus illigetur iugum fere repudiatur ab omnibus qui praecepta rusticis conscripserunt neque immerito, plus enim queunt pecudes collo et pectore conari quam cornibus atque hoc modo tota mole corporis totoque pondere nituntur, at illo, retractis et resupinis capitibus excruciantur aegreque terrae summam partem leui admodum uomere sauciant.

⁶⁷ I assume the text to be sound here though the alteration of posterior to prior would remove the dissensions from our authorities.

⁶⁸ Cf. Palladius i. 43. 1: aratra Simplicia, uel, si plana regio permittit, aurita quibus possint contra stationes humoris hiberni sata celsiore sulco attolli: and see note 25 above.

⁶⁹ His first interpretation is not explicit but probably gives the Nonian view.

⁷⁰ Schol. Dan. distinguish buris and uruum: the only other evidence, a confused gloss of Festus, s.v. uruat, does not help to decide the real meaning of the word uruum.

⁷¹ R.R. i. 1. 11.

⁷² R.R. i. 19. 1, f.

⁷³ What the meaning of the words a stirpe may be I do not understand.

⁷⁴ R.R. lxiii.

⁷⁵ A primitive wooden plough found in Jutland measures over all 3·40 m. but in this case the tail leans somewhat backwards (S. Müller, op. cit. p. 22 and Fig. 1).

⁷⁶ Cf. Figs. 13 and 14.

⁷⁷ ii. 2. 23; cf. further Pers. i. 73: sulco terens dentalia.

⁷⁸ N.H. xviii. 171 f.

⁷⁹ Cato (R.R. cxxxv.) seems to speak of detachable shares, and for summer ploughing the Geoponica (ii. 23. 14) recommend ὕνει χρῆσθαι βαρυτέρᾳ