Tiemann's articles have already been referred to in the chapter on Ritter, with whose work they are closely connected, the third being a review of his book. The second, relating to certain reply formulae investigated by Ritter, was intended partly to clarify the statistics for individual formulae which Ritter had combined in groups, partly to correct his figures (Table i I.I p. 88). For the reason mentioned previously (p. 56), it is difficult in the case of reply formulae to declare categorically that one investigator's data are correct, another's incorrect, but Tiemann appears to have been more consistent than Ritter in his specifications.

There are, Tiemann said, three things worth noting in the statistics.

1. (a) Formulae with ὀρθῶς are very rare in the first period, only ὀρθῶς λέγεις being found, 5 times in all. The same formulae are more frequent in the second period, still more so in the third.

2. (b) Almost only the formulae with λέγεις are used in the first period. In the dialogues of the other two periods the percentage of formulae without λέγεις in relation to the total is as follows: Theaet. 58, Phdr. 20, Rep. 74, Soph. 76, Pol. 87, Phil. 65, Laws 41.

3. The small percentage in the Phdr.> Tiemann explained, is of no significance, since the total of 5 formulae hardly permits any comparison. On the other hand the considerable decrease in the Laws is very remarkable, and we should perhaps recognise it as a sign of increasing prolixity of expression.

4. […]