In Vol. XXIIL, pp. 105–8, Mr. Lockwood criticizes some of the observations which I made in pp. 7–10 of the same volume.

§ 271. I ‘assume’ that τοῦτ' δετι δεινότητα explains ύπόκρισιν καὶ ἀγῶνα and not τὸ διαλελυμένον, (1) because ‘figures of speech in general’ cannot be said to ‘produce’ τὸ διαλελυμένον asyndeton, which is itself one of those figures; (2) because, conversely, τὸ διαλελυμένον is not equivalent to δεινότης but a means of producing δεινότης. τὸ διαλελυμένον must, therefore, be nominative, not accusative, and Professor Rhys Roberts' rendering, ‘lending especially the effect of abruptness, in other words of energy,’ cannot (I speak with all respect) be right. The Professor himself is not happy with it, and adds in a note that ‘a better sense would be obtained by placing μάλιστα τὸ διαλελυμένον before ὑπόκρισιν, i.e. “the figures of speech, and especially asyndeton.”‘ My excision (or, rather, Professor Radermacher's) gives the same sense. Orth, in his translation, omits the words τοῦτ' ἐστι δεινότητα, and interprets as I do.