Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/130

 120 Journal of Philology. Col. 9, 1. 20. S. rejects duovav. Insert ko before wX*vi with K. Col. 10, 1. 10. Mr Sllilleto proposes {mtp7TT)br] v ttj]u d(r- ayye[iav v<r}irtp vvv | ycyp[a<pas]. In the Addenda other words are Suggested for ctjjs. K. reads erj aoi rpayabias ypcxpav beov tl<r- ayyikiav, otaairep vvv yeypacpas. Patakis also has c(-j} <roi, which is probably right. Read e^fj aoi rpaycabias yp[a<pav f Is rffv rfcrayyc[lav olao~]7rep vvv yeypa(pas. Compare Demosth. p. 889, a yeypacpev ovros (Is to eyickqpa. Also p. 978. Col. 10, 1. 23. B. yeyp[a<pas kcu] atria. K. proposes yeypacpas os Up alna. He continues the sentence thus : on rainy rij yvvaiKi napeo-- Kevaaa ayapov evbov Karayrjpao-Ktiv, f iyc Toidcrfif cvvoiKflv, toy ^r, ov irpoa-rjKCt tt.r.v. Read on ravrrjv rf}v yvvaiica tirparrov ayapov evbov icaray. See De- mosth. p. 888. The next clause seems to have been participial. Col. 11, 1. 21. MS. 7T(iK(iav, and col. 12, 1. 9, eireiiaj. But, as in col. 26, 1. 26, eiretia) is corrected to rutf, these forms are probably wrong. S. argues conversely that, as in the two pas- sages there is no correction, so in the third the correction is to be neglected. This is surely a strange mode of reasoning. (See his note on col. 26, 1. 26). Col. 12, 1. 20. B. [iv8c]x fTal ab*tKTj[o-ai, ravjra ptv bit | [ an avrov rov | [di(o]paros ov av ] [f^tf ns]. S. reads ivb(x*rai dfit- KTjdfjvai. . . rov abiKrjparos, ov av aducr} ns. His note is not quite clear. The opposition is between those offences which are conceivable at any time in a man's life, and those which from their nature are confined to a particular period ; the offence in question being of the latter kind. B. appears to have understood this. His reading however is not satisfactory. Kayser's suggestion rov 7rpayparos ov av *pa ns seems to give the right sense, but cannot have been the expression used. The reading of S. is objectionable on more grounds than one : for Jirst, it brings forward the injured party as the prominent person, in place of the offender, contrary to the sense of the passage ; and secondly, it makes the orator go out of his way to express what after all is only an idle truism. Col. 12, 1. 27. B. dXX' fj 7ra[ai poi irp~]6<r*<mv, but in the Ad- denda 7roXai roiovr6s (o-nv. S. has ns potxos iariv. But Mr B. on re-examining the MS. pronounces that the letter before o can only have been t, y, or n, and suggests duddapros. The reading