^{page 41 note 1} Such doubts as have occurred to me are on small points: e.g., has A ψε⋯δεα or ψευδ⋯α in 713? Other doubtful accents appear in the notes on 169, 897, 902, 908. The text has a misprint in 785.

^{page 41 note 2} If we follow the MSS., μν⋯μα in the sense of μν⋯μη may perhaps be defended by comparison with γν⋯μα. Giving a metaphorically concrete sense, the editor calls μνκα⋯ χ⋯ριν ‘hendyadys as 1040’: but the Platonic trick of coupling metaphor and fact by a Kaí. strikes me as foreign to poetry; and no stretch of ‘hendiadys’ can cover in 1040.

^{page 41 note 3} ῔λλης in 1202, which has been satisfactorily emended.

^{page 41 note 4} Equally superfluous is the δ' accepted from Orelli in 937.

^{page 42 note 1} E.g. 127, 287–8, 309–12, 513, 669, 806, 884, 1219, 1247. 428: the ‘parallel’ between a living man heaping together a bed of leaves and a dead man piling earth over his own corpse— a difficult feat—is not ‘exact.’ 843: a good counsellor would advise a man to leave a drinking-bout, not ‘when he sees things upside down,’ but rather earlier, 1133–4: καταπα⋯σομεν is of course aor. subj., not fut. ind.

^{page 42 note 2} On 3: some of the examples of the form ‘first, last, midst’ are not to the point, and it is not the fact that ‘there is no special reference to Ptolemy in the middle’ of Theocr. 17: Pt. comes next to Zeus in the prelude and the epilogue, and he is the theme and substance of the middle of the poem.—A note on the relation between 239 and Iliad x. 217 is badly wanted.— On 903 and 905 (p. 260): ⋯ναλώσσει in Plato Rep. 591E is verb, not noun (the error is perhaps borrowed from Stephanus-Dindorf or Ast); and the note on κστιδεῖν wants further thought.

^{page 42 note 3} See, e.g., 4, 11, 115, 175.

^{page 42 note 4} Which encourage me to shorten ‘Professor Hudson-Williams’ to ‘W.’

^{page 42 note 3} E.g., the poems are not arranged by catchwords; they contain many complete poems, of one couplet or more; they are not a schoolbook or a Commersbuch; the pastime of labelling pieces with the names of Callinus, Chilon, and the like, is full of risk; metrical and linguistic tests have failed.

^{page 42 note 6} He discusses anew the question and the answer is , and thinks that the question may refer not to metre but to matter. Then why does the answer bring in a term of metre? Or, again, he thinks that ⋯ν π. ἔπ may mean no more than ‘Where?’ Then what does ⋯ν τ. ⋯λ. add to οὗ? In order to make the question relevant, he makes the answer irrelevant. The interpretation of ⋯λ⋯γον μεταβ⋯ς which he follows may be right, but he does not commend it by asking, ‘Would Socrates at one and the same moment refer to the poem as showing “a slight change of standpoint” and “a direct self-contradiction”?’ How many words to a moment? Forty or fifty words intervene.

^{page 43 note 1} This suggestion is Hartung's, I think; it was adopted by Blass.

^{page 43 note 2} The evidence given in the note on 1345 (cf. p. 58) perhaps points to a poet earlier than Euenus.

^{page 43 note 3} 153–4. 315–8, 7i?V–28, 793–6, 1017–22, 1253–4.

^{page 43 note 4} 227–32, 585–94, 933–8, 1003–6.

^{page 43 note 5} Prof.Smyth, H. W. (C.R. 1903, p. 353)Google Scholar raises the strange objections that 933–4 ‘destroy the force’ of Tyrtaeus' lines,‘ and leave μιν in 935 without definite reference.’ μιν refers most definitely to the subject of 934.

^{page 44 note 1} See especially p. 47, n.

^{page 44 note 2} 1197–1202 are addressed to Cyrnus under the name Πολυπα⋯δης, and therefore (by W. 's criterion) they are by Theognis: yet ‘these lines are evidently modelled on Hes. W.D. 488 sqq., with a clear attempt at differentiation.’ So Theognis is at it again.

^{page 44 note 3} See Allen, T. W. in C.R. 1905, p. 389Google Scholar; Immisch, O. in Neue Jahrbücher, xiii. 1904, p. 236Google Scholar, who concludes: ‘Die Hauptsache ist in jedem Falle, dass der Dichter das wirkliche ποιεῖν, also die Eigenschöpfung im engeren Sinne nur für einen Teil dessen, was er gibt in Anspruch nimmt.’

^{page 45 note 1} ‘1353 = 3O1.’ says W. (p. 252); but it is not so. What does he mean when he says (p. 62) that 301 ‘hardly makes sense’?

^{page 46 note 1} Cf. E. Meyer, Gesch. d. Alt. ii. § 473: ‘ein positives Eingreifen der Perser in die Verhältnisse am aegaeischen Meer war noch nicht möglich (before 525 B.C.).’

^{page 46 note 2} With what does the σο⋯ μ⋯ν ⋯γὼ of 237 correspond if not with the αὐτ⋯ρ ⋯γὼ παρ⋯ σε⋯ of 253? But this should be an easy question for one who can translate 19–20 thus (p. 51): ‘I on the one hand seal my poems, they on the other will not get lost.’

^{page 46 note 3} At least, not in 1910. In 1903 W.'s ‘separate and well-arranged collection’ did end, oddly enough, at 254, but it has shrunk a little in these seven years.