225 



sufficiently plain. It appears, too, from the use of the 

 word Kvafioc in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and 

 others of about the same aera, that this ancient 

 sense of Kvafioc was retained in the time of Theo- 

 phrastus (as in fact it was always), and possibly he 

 may have been the person who first extended the 

 name of Kva/moc to the Nymph&a Nelumbo, and may 

 thus have thrown the light which you so skilfully 

 discovered upon the precept of Pythagoras. 



In Suidas and Julius Pollux I find no hint of the 

 Nelumbo under the head of Kvafioc. Suidas has 

 Kva/^oc, €i$oq oairpiov. Pollux also enumerates the 

 Kva/jLoc, among the oairpia or legumina, and says Kva/noi 

 ol Km irvafxoi. Hesychius makes it an oorrpiov, but in 

 a note to him (from Eustathius) is added KaXovpevov 



KoXoKaaiov. 



In Athenaeus, however, I find mention made not 

 only of ordinary kvo/hoi eaten at feasts, but also of 

 the Kva/uioQ Aiyv7TTioc, of which he gives a descrip- 

 tion extracted from Theophrastus (viz. that of the 

 Nymphaa Nelumbo, not of the Lotus) ; he also 

 quotes Nicander, who recommends the sowing of 

 this Kvafxoc AtyuTTTioc, saying that garlands may be 

 made of its flowers, and that its fruit and roots may 

 be eaten. This Nicander (who was certainly no Py- 

 thagorean) lived about 137 B.C. In his time then, 

 and probably before, (but how long before I know 

 not,) the Nymphaa Nelumbo was known as a plant 

 fit for food, and the name nvapoc was commonly af- 

 fixed to it, perhaps taken from Theophrastus. 



The only apology which I have to make for send- 

 ing you these crudities, is the desire which I felt to 



vol. ii. a 



