Reviews. 121 7rdXm tis toiovtos ea-nv does not seem to be excluded by the limits of the vacant space. Col. 19, 1. 24. B. eveypa[<f>0ri]. S. rightly iveypdcpr,. Col. 20, 1. 13. irpv e&Tdo-axnv. S., we think needlessly, inserts, av. Cobet considers that this correction is absolutely necessary. Col. 20, 1. 15. "Voculam ov, quam priora requirunt, pos- teriora respuunt. Expunge pr et habebis Hyperidis manum tj ov- pa Af, ovx ." C, to which S. seems disposed to accede. So far from being an intruder, the ov appears to us to be almost required in the latter clause. Col. 20, 1. 26. irepX tov iyeiv pfj ov ra apiara. The ov is obelized by B. and rejected by S. But, though suspicious, it is not utterly defenceless. If the words meant " in cases where sen- timents are uttered, &c." pj ov would of course be inadmissible : but perhaps they may imply "in the matter of the prohibition against speaking what is not," literally, " about speaking, except where it is for the interests, &c." This consideration will be of little weight with Schneidewin who rejects pj ov, where it is much more defensible (e. g. CEd. Tyr. vv. 13, 221), and to others perhaps the frequent recurrence of the phrase pfj ra apiara else- where, (col. 18, 1. 22, col. 23, 1. 9, col. 39, 1. 21, col. 47, 1. 20, cf. col. 40, 1. 3), may seem a sufficient proof that it stood origi- nally in this passage also. On the other hand, it is remarkable that here where it does occur it may be in a manner defended, whereas if it had been found in any of the other passages cited, it must have been rejected at a glance. The assumption that all scribes, by virtue of their calling, had an inexplicable par- tiality for pfj ov is somewhat gratuitous. Considering the anti- quity of our MS., the application of such a rule here is par- ticularly ill-timed, unless it can be shewn that the Alexandrian writers also were endowed with this strange propensity. Col. 21, 1. 22. ypacpal. B. with the MS. Both he and Cobet wish to insert eiVi. S. cleverly suggests ypcKperai ; but the point is not what actually was done with the offender, but how he might be dealt with. The abruptness of ypa<pa seems to be inten- tional, yet the opinion that etVt may have been omitted is rendered somewhat probable by the existence of an error (though not uncorrected) on the part of the scribe in this very sentence. Col. 27, 1. 13. The German critics now agree in punctuating the passage thus : diafiXTjOqo-oprai vtto aov. vfj Aia, ra yap. k. t. X.
