^{page 129 note 1} The First Greek Anthologist, with Notes on Some Choliambic Fragments, by Knox, A. D., Cambridge, 1923, pp. 26 sqq.Google Scholar; and C R., 1925, p. 13.

^{page 129 note 2} Brit. Mus. Pap. 135.

^{page 129 note 3} The use of this thick type instead of the usual subscript dots is due to the exigencies of printing. It has been extended to the conjectural lettering enclosed within brackets. E and Ω stand for θ and ω of the papyrus.—EDD. C.Q.

^{page 129 note 4} Those who have worked at doubtful letters in papyri will realize how much the personal equation comes in. If my opinions on such points appear sometimes to be expressed too dogmatically, it is merely for the sake of brevity.

^{page 129 note 5} These and some other points of this paper were communicated to Mr. Knox in 1924.

^{page 130 note 1} The cross-stroke of T is prolonged through the iota, but the first down-stroke visible is that of the T, cf. 7. 38 n. below.

^{page 130 note 2} Knox's reading (C.R.) does not seem to me to account so well for the traces.

^{page 131 note 1} The mounting here is still inaccurate, and The mounting here is still inaccurate, and has perhaps misled Mr. Knox (C.R.), whose supplements are rather too short-e.g. there would be room for his στέων.

^{page 131 page 2} For the form of the first H cf. III. 30; Mr. Knox's (C.R.) μετ'] ξɭηѕ will hardly do; ]a is just possible, but not]αξ for this genitive with similar words cf. Kühn.-Bl. II. I. 388a; μαστος = δμοπολίτης is very unlikely as early as H.: ό μαστός would not come in here.

^{page 132 note 1} Mr. Knox's latest suggestion (C.R) ξελ]θέτω έ[χ]ων is, I think, open to these objections: I see no trace of E[, and the traces before ΩN suit II rather than X, whose top right corner I should expect to see.

^{page 132 note 2} O[ notΩ[.

^{page 132 note 3} Reading his archetype ἂλοɩμ' for λοɭην from άλɩσκομαɩ ?

^{page 132 note 4} Was there an old alternative ού δ࿂? δή and δή are often confused.

^{page 133 note 1} The slanting stroke from right to left, which makes the letter under E look like K or H, is probably not ink.

^{page 134 note 1} In placing any recurrent hole we must remember that this roll gets thicker with every revolution (the last man who read it before the worms got into it failed to roll it back again); the average addition to be made between cols. 15 and 31 works out at 2 mm., but of course the amount to be added itself gradually increases, and between cols. 28 and 31 it is more like ½ so that at cols. 35–36 we should allow ½ mm. or slightly over.

^{page 134 note 2} This gives a rather wider gap than is required by Mr. Knox's latest suggestions; I think he cannot have allowed for the gradual increase of the distance between recurrent wormholes (see above); it should be noted that at 1. 31 he is obliged to presume accidental omission in one of his alternatives, neither of which, to my mind, is satisfactory.

^{page 135 note 1} The cross-stroke of T is prolonged through the iota, which is invisible; cf. note on I. 82 above.

^{page 135 note 2} Encaustic, see Hdl.

^{page 135 note 3} For the ‘trouble and expense’ of keeping slaves cf. Plat. Rep. 465c.

^{page 137 note 1} I take these values from Nairn, pp. 106 sqq.; they are of course intended merely for purposes of comparison, not as representing buying-power.

^{page 137 note 2} If, as is believed by some, the stater was equivalent to the daric, the difficulty is increased.

^{page 137 note 3} For δɩπλόους rather than δɩπλος cf. II. 54, and compare the Jersey double and our doubloon ‘from Span, doblon, so called because it is the double of the pistole’ (Skeat).

^{page 138 note 1} See also Herzog, , Philologus 79Google Scholar.

^{page 138 note 2} These words were written before I saw where, Herzog (Philol.) or Knox (C.R.); they still apply, though the palaeographical reasons are not so strong as they were.

^{page 138 note 3} Herzog's reading here, as too often else where, does not account for the palaeographical facts.

^{page 138 note 4} Or τρɩον, see below; the fragment ]νă seems now (July, 1925) to have disappeared.

^{page 139 note 1} Herzog's στθος below it too long.

^{page 139 note 2} by the horns, see below.

^{page 139 note 3} E.g. figs, if this is winter, see below.

^{page 139 note 4} I.e. it was slit on both sides from shoulder to heel, cf. ar. Ran. 404.

^{page 139 note 5} Knox's η[ον]ς hardly suits the traces.

^{page 139 note 6} Mr. A. B. Cook, to whose kindness I owe much hereabouts, refers me for the ‘fruit and unmixed wine’ at the rural Dionysia to the reliefs on the stage of Pheadrus (see his restoration Zeus I., pl. XL,), which show a goat held by the horns (cf. Hesych, κερατοεσσείς οί τούς ταύρους ἓλκοντες άπò τν κεράτων) at an offering of fruits (apparently figs) and cakes; he also would compare a red-figured amphora 24 ii in teh Naples Collection, Mon. dell' Inst. VI., pl.37.

^{page 140 note 1} A piece of this has been lost or turned round Since Narin's facsimile was made.

^{page 140 note 2} The alternative form would probably have be στελίδα in H.

^{page 141 note 1} Suggested to me by Mr. Knox's (C.R.) <ε> ʅθɩστο (ther is hardly room, I think, for his εɼϰ' [ὃπη τɩς] befor it).

^{page 141 note 3} II's whose top stroke does not project on the left occur in 7.59, 8. 21, 22; the ‘Kick-up’ of the right leg is fairly common, and is found before iota in 4. 13.

^{page 141 note 4} E. H. ϒ are just possiple readings of this doubtful letter, hardly M.

^{page 141 note 5} The ϒ seems to me to be visible on the under surface.

^{page 142 note 1} With Mr. Knox's ῂλί&rsqb;κον which for palaeographical reasons, as we have seen, is unlikely, we should have expected πεΦνσσθαɩ; the use of πεποɩσθαɩ seems to call for a predicate.

^{page 142 note 2} An alternative is to read αίòλον or Αìολόν as the adjective, in the former case with a punning reference to Aeolus, in the latter taking Αìολόνas the adjective of Α⍳ολον (‘of Aeolus’); or did H. write Αĭολος ‘of Aeolus’ (corrupted toΑίόλου?

^{page 143 note 1} No room for ᾣρα]μας (imperfect); a trace overthe A is perhaps the remains of the correction H or HI (i.e. 'read όρμς ?).

^{page 143 note 2} In view of Herodas' title and the derivation, it seems likely that for δɩανηστɩσμόν in Ath. I iid we should read ᾀπονησμόν.

^{page 144 note 1} Or ἲ]σαɩ, see below.

^{page 144 note 2} Or a slightly misplaced mark of cancellation meaning ‘read Εύέτεɩρα’ ? see below.

^{page 144 note 3} Cf. παρɭστασθαɩ, Lys. 18. 10.