^{page 109 note 1} The solution of other problems too; but I do not follow him so far. (i) Why a line is (apparently) missing between col. i. 46 and ii. 11: it is suggested that the copyist ‘compressed (say) twelve lines into eleven and went temporarily astray in his colometry’— too large a blunder to be probable, for a man who had by this time shown himself to be naster of the true colometry. (ii) Why the:opyist ‘did not have the confidence to put n any paragraphi’—but we do not know:hat he did not ‘put in any paragraphi’: we Mily know that he left one out at col. ii. 5–6 (the omission of another at col. i. 22 is ittested only by the not infallible eye of Croenert).

^{page 110 note 1} In v. 6, was marked for deletion, according to Croenert. The last sentence in Mr. Harvey's n. I on p. 179 sug gests that I print the dot over ρ without explaining it: the explanation is in my app. crit. ad loc.

^{page 110 note 2} Examples abound: e.g. Pind. Pyth. 6. 9 and 12 are about equal in space occupied in die papyrus; but v. 9 has 27 letters, v. 12 has 31; Eur. Cretans col. i. 2–3, almost identical in length, but 14 and 18 letters respectively; Callim. P. Oxy. 2211, fr. 1 r. 5 and 22, hexameter and pentameter identical in length.

^{page 110 note 3} Sufficient for two lines, according to Wilamowitz; for one, Croenert. I thought that the photograph supported Wilamowitz.

^{page 110 note 4} If, as Croenert thought, there is room for only one line between 6 and 9, the explanation which I give would become simpler still: the line following 6 contained nothing but , and the true colometry began in v. 9, with Perhaps the doubt, whether there is room for one line or two, arises from the copyist's leaving a little more space than usual between lines at the point where the false colometry stopped and the true began.

^{page 112 note 1} As for Plut. Mus. 1136b (Mr. Harvey's last footnote): I still think it should be left out of the discussion. There is no reason to suppose that Istros and the enigmatic ‘An-ticles’ are the source for anything beyond (at farthest) the point where diverts attention from them; indeed it is very improbable that they are still the source from this point onwards. Moreover, we know nothing of ‘Anticles’, and should build nothing further on the conjecture ‘Anti-cleides’. As for Istros: he might (but there is no proof that he did) have some knowledge of a third-century (Hellenistic) Corinna.