[1615]. Id. ii. 18. From Mr. Bœckh’s account it might seem as though the exportation of corn was always prohibited at Selymbria (Pub. Econ. i 73); whereas this was the case during famines only.
[1616]. Pub. Econ. i. 73, seq.
[1617]. Rhet. i. 4.
[1618]. Plut. Solon. § 24.
[1619]. Pind. Nem. x. 64. Shulz. Cf. Dissen. t. ii. 505. Petit, p. 417.
[1620]. Bowring, Statistics of Tuscany, p. 15. Ulpian, to whom Bœckh, i. 74, refers, merely repeats the well-known prohibition to ship-captains to take a cargo of corn to any foreign port. Orat. x. p. 271. a.
[1621]. Economy of Athens, p. 75.
[1622]. Ran. 364: ἄσκωμα δὲ δερμάτιον τι ᾧ ἐν ταῖς τριήρεσι χρῶνται, καθ᾽ ὁ ἡ κώπη βάλλεται.
[1623]. Pollux. i. 88: τὸ δὲ πρὸς αὐτῷ τῷ σκαλμῷ δέρμα ἄσκωμα.
[1624]. Pollux. ii. 164: τὸ δε ὑποπιμπλάμενον τοῦ γάλακτος, κὸλπος καὶ ἄσκωμα. Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 97. Hescych. Etym. Mag. et Suid. in v. But more especially Scheffer, De Militiâ Navali, p. 13, Cf. Brunck ad Ran. 364. This confirms the extremely ingenious conjecture of Mitford, though he was mistaken in supposing the thing to have been called ὑπηρέσιον, which meant simply “a cushion.” Hist. of Greece, iii. 154. Casaub. ad Theoph. Char. p. 344, is very unsatisfactory.