^{page 122 note 1} Hofmeister, (‘Die Gerichtsscene im Schild des Achill,’ in Ztschr. für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, ii. (1880), p. 443 ff.Google Scholar) as quoted by Ameis-Hentze (Anhang ad loc.) gives the right interpretation of the relation of the ἴστωρ to the γέροντϵς. Münscher, in the Allg. Schulzeitung, 1829, ii. 579Google Scholar, takes ἀναίνϵτο μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι as negavit se quidquam accepturum (Ebeling, Lex. Hom. s.v. ἀναίνομαι). I have not been able to see either of these papers.

^{page 122 note 2} MSS. ἀποφθιμένου, but the text, which is clearer, was the reading of Zenodotos and αἱ πλϵῖσται according to Didymos. The question does not affect the general sense.

^{page 126 note 1} The ordinary objection to the interpretation of ἀναίνϵτο as ‘refused’ is that the kin of the murdered man have free choice as to whether they will accept the blood-money or no. In primitive societies this is certainly true. But the mere fact that the blood-feud disappears shows that there must have been a middle stage when this free choice was restricted. I understand from Mr. Arthur Evans that the blood-feud is still prevalent in North Albania, but is mitigated by the occasional acceptance of the blood-price. The ‘sanction’ here is religious, reconciliation being effected through the Franciscans. Gross cases, however, as when a man is slain within a tribe under whose protection he is, come under the cognizance of the pljech or village council (literally = γϵρουσία). It is much to be hoped that Mr. Evans will publish his inquiries into this important piece of social history.

^{page 126 note 2} Pp. 375—377 of the fifth edition.

^{page 127 note 1} This sense is conclusively established by the only other Homeric passage where the word occurs, Ψ 486, where Agamemnon is named as referee to settle a bet.

^{page 127 note 2} It seems a priori likely that the division of public opinion, as qualifying a case for the cognizance of the state as a political body, would become a conventional form; in other words, that in trials such as these the litigants would have to come into court accompanied each by a body of friends, representing their party among the people. Can the custom of compurgators have arisen from such a practice ?

^{page 128 note 1} See Mr.Ridgeway, in Journ. Phil. x. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} Dasent, The Story of Burnt Njal, ch. cxviii.

^{page 131 note 1} Burnt Njal, ch. cxxii.

^{page 131 note 2} In Burnt Njal, ch. ci. Hall of the Side gives Thorgeir, ‘the priest of Light-water, who was the old Speaker of the law,’ three marks of silver as a fee for an utterance as to the introduction of Christianity. He though a heathen decides for the new religion; and consequently ‘heathendom was all done away with within a few years' space.’ The payment of judges was therefore not unknown.