If all the passages of Thucydides in which transposition of words has been plausibly suggested were added up, the total would be by no means insignificant. But careful consideration has convinced me that transposition is required in a far larger number of cases than anyone, so far as I know, has yet thought, and that the transposition is not seldom of a rather surprising kind. Very often it is not a question merely of making a few words which adjoin one another exchange places. A word, two or three words, a clause, a whole sentence has to be moved, sometimes to the line preceding or following, sometimes three or four lines away, occasionally six, eight, or even ten. This is, I am convinced, the true solution of many notorious difficulties in the text of Thucydides. One or two cases of this had struck me years ago. I noted them and thought little of it. But more recently I observed, or thought I observed, quite a number of such cases in Books 4 and 5, and minute study of the other books seems to show that the same thing is true of them also.

The following paper contains a few suggestions which have occurred to me from time to time. As it was written under appreciable difficulties—Want of access to a library being the chief—it is possible that at whiles I may have simply repeated the criticisms of others. In that case, I can only express my regret for the involuntary depredation.

Herakleides, fr. 3I (Muller F.H.G. ii. p. 222, with his note):

ACP et margo p; om.reliqui.

Elymnion, according to Stephanos, was The name occurs in Aristophanes {Peace, 1126) in a context which points to the neighbourhood of Oreos. There is no evidence to connect it immediately with Chalkis. Mela (II. 2. 30) mentions an Echinia near Akanthos: ' inter Strymona et Athon Turris Calarnaea et portus Capru, urbs Acanthos et Echinia.' Confusion of A and X is easy. Thus, even if the first sentence has no ol, the passage gives no safe evidence that these settlers came to Kleonai from Chalkis, or from Euboea. Such a derivation would be hard to reconcile with Thucydides' account of the towns on Akte. If oί is right, cadit quaestio.

After reading carefully the essay which, in his recently-published Varia Socratica, Part I., Prof. A. E. Taylor has written on the use of the words and in the Greek literature of the Socratic and Platonic periods, I find myself on the one hand in agreement with him as to the importance of such linguistic investigations for the understanding of Plato, and on the other in frequent disagreement with him as to the meaning of the words in the passages he cites, and the inferences he draws from them. Thinking that Prof. Taylor's analysis of the use of the terms in Hippocrates is very far from final, I offer in this paper a further contribution to their interpretation, confining myself as far as possible to the question, What do and mean in the Hippocratean writings?

VIII 18 6 (G. Baehrens, Lips. MCMXI p. 245 17) ‘Nee idcirco minoribus gaudiis feruntur dempti periculi [meri] quod experiundi necessitate caruerunt.’

Cum de certa emendatione nondum constet haereatque etiam nouus editor utrum ‘periculi maris’ praeferat an deleat [meri] et clausulae causa ‘pericli’ restituat, aliam uiam ingredi licebit, scilicet ut syllabam intercidisse suspicemur qua reuocata optima efficitur clausula: ‘dempti periculi merifo’ = dempti periculi causa, cf. Sittl, Lokale Verschiedenheiten p. 135, Archiv f. lat. Lexicogr. I 174, 574, VIII 590, X 539, 562.

Inter praecepta, quae Priapus amatoribus dat ad puerorum uolutitatem sibi conciliandam, hoc quoque est (I 4, 41–44):

neu comes ire neges, quamuis uia longa paretur

et Canis arenti torreat arua siti,

quamuis praetexens picta ferrugine caelum

uenturam amiciat imbrifer arcus aquam.

Ubi Varro (R. R. I 13, 2) de uilla rustica facienda agit, de culina haec monet: in primis culina uidenda ut sit admota, quod ibi hieme antelucanis temponbus aliquot res conficiuntur, cibus paratur ac capitur. Hunc locum legentes sponte nosmet ipsos rogamus, quid sibi uelit illud admota. ‘Prope cellam uilici,’ inquit Keilius (Comm. p. 46), de qua paulo ante sermo est: uilici proximum ianuam cellam esse oportet eumque scire, qui introeat aut exeat noctu quidue ferat, praesertim si ostianus eat nemo. Sed si locum ita interpretamur, quomodo intellegenda est sententia, quae sequitur, causalis: quod ibi hieme cet. ? Num uilicus in cella iacens uel sedens moderari debebat opera, quae mane in culina fiebant ? An idcirco culinam proximam cellae uilici esse oportebat, ut inter utramque paruum spatium interesset, si uilicus ab altera ad alteram commeare uellet ? Et hoc et illud uix credibile est Varronem significare uoluisse.