On the editors’ suggestion, Professors Meritt and McGregor have generously afforded me the opportunity to conclude our scholarly exchange with a brief comment on their latest remarks (see above, pp.21-24).

First, a few points of detail.

(i) I still find unacceptable the label ‘indirect reflexive’ given to the phenomenon in dispute, and I see no reason to retract anything I wrote in Antichthon 17 (1983), 32-36 on the grammatical case,

(ii) The alternative restorations outlined by me (ibid. 31) were not proposals as such but merely exempli gratia suggestions. I entirely agree that it is undesirable ‘to restore errors and irregularities’ — though the doubled sigma is not demonstrably an error — but what I have suggested can at least be paralleled elsewhere on Attic stones. Likewise, although may well be unacceptable in i3 62.10-11, that does not mean that the heavily restored must therefore necessarily be right.