160 Aster Hisrory; PAUSANIAS 
Siebel, editor of Pausanias in 1822, is as indefinite as pos- 
sible, merely indexing the reference as to a certain ‘‘Asterion, 
herba.”’ 
Against the identity of Pausanias’ Asterion with the Asterion 
of Dioscorides, and, therefore, against its identity with Aster At- 
— the following reasons may be urged : 
. The names, although seeming the same in English lettering, 
are not quite the same in Greek, the form of Pausanias being ’ dats- 
ptwy, Dioscorides’ ’Aatéveov. This difference may be nullified by 
observing that if the plant usually called doréocov so abounded along 
the river independently named ’4arepiwy, it was natural that the 
plant-name should become assimilated to that of the river; or it 
may not have been actually so assimilated, but may have been 
before unknown to Pausanias and though given to him in the form 
dazépcov it may have been understood by him to be meant for the 
same form exactly as the river-name. 
2. The chief objection to the identity of the two plants called 
Asterion seems to be this : some might infer from Pausanias that - 
his Asterion was a plant with long leafy stems more suitable to 
weave into wreaths than could be said of the short stems of Aster 
Atticus. Ido not regard this objection as carrying weight, for we 
have references by Nicander and Vergil to the weaving from Aster 
jee of garlands and wreaths for altars. and grave-columns. 
. Some may object to the identity of the two Asteria that 
ope vee * in his valued commentary on Homer has been under- 
stood to identify + Pausanias’ plant with the short-stemmed but 
sacred verbena, the Greek xepeatsosmy, sometimes called Gntatepe@r, 
especially latterly, but for which mepeatspsmy, plant of the doves, 
was the common Greek name from Cratevas onward. 
Eustathius, commenting on the command of Ulysses that his 
palace at Ithaca be purified with incense after the suitors for Pené 
lope were slain, remarks as follows: : 
* Eustathius, a Greek born in Poistedtuoks bishop ee “‘Phessalonicn, ., died 
1198 A. D., whose commentary is “ of incalculable value to us, as nearly all the works 
from which he made his extracts are lost.’’ 
Comm. on Odyssey, edn, Weigel, east 1825-6 ; based chiefly on the Romer 
text ny _ af en eaR corrections ; i: 
stathius’ Comm on Odyssey, 22, eg ; chapter 1935, line 25 page 291, edn. te 
mes Tee 1825-6, 
