^{page 122 note 1} In monograph B, p. 33 fin., M. explicitly treats ‘completed’ and ‘dependent’ as antitheta.

^{page 122 note 2} It is really the syntax of κ.τ.á. (too obscure for the commentators to notice it) that is of interest here. It is surely easier to take the words with τ⋯ν πορθμ⋯ν(so L.S. J., me suadente) as a bold substitute for a participle agreeing therewith (as in i. 134. 2, ii. 83. 2, etc.) than with τηρ⋯σαντɛσ as a substitute for ⋯π⋯τɛ κατ⋯οι (cf. B 794, M.'s remark on which [p. 33] indicates that he takes κ.τ.á. directly with τμρ. in the sense of ‘while the wind was blowing down’. That is certainly wrong.)

^{page 123 note 1} The quasi-theological argument with which he seeks to make Hdt. ii. 13.1 (Μο⋯ρι κτλ.)sufficient by itself to establish his case (R.E.G., p. 39) is demolished by Hdt. ix. 74.1 (ΣωΦ⋯νης…ἓχɛι)etc.