Dr. Jacobsthal's learned and ingenious discussion of the himation described by Pseudo-Aristotle in de miris auscult. 96, 838a (JHS lviii, 1938, 205 ff.) is not wholly satisfying. In general it remains strange that so splendid a work should belong to one of the later revivals of Sybaris, and in detail the use of зῴδια for views of cities is unnatural, while the interpretation of Πέρσαι as Persepolis, though just sufficiently attested, is hardly convincing.

The difficulty centres in Σούσοις. Apart from this word everyone would translate Πέρσαις ‘ Persians, ’ and it is easy to imagine for the lower border a processional composition of Oriental warriors. Heyne's Σούσοις is not plausible, since no Greek is likely to have differentiated Susians from Persians.

I would suggest that Σούσοις is a corruption of Σκύθαις. We need not press the ethnic names: it is enough to suppose two friezes of distinguishable barbarians. The assumed corruption is easy, since C and Θ are notoriously similar in uncials, while K is often confused with IC, I is often lost, and C is often confused with O. A little illegibility in an uncial ancestor would account for all the misreadings, and the names Σούσων and Περσῶν occur only two lines apart in c. 27 supra, and may have been running as a pair in the scribe's head. The tendency of manuscripts of this treatise to miswrite proper names is illustrated by their disagreement over Alkisthenes in this passage and by other corruptions, such as Μηδικὴν for Μαιδικὴν (c. 1), κύὴνπρῳ for Γυάρῳ (c. 25), and Κολούσοις for Λουσοϊς (c. 125).