(i 
Accentual Cursus in Byzantine Greek Prose. 419 
cases as the following: ureidow encoteatetourtos. nenoinzey inoyeiou. 
He instances Sophronius as a writer who consistently showed this 
form by written accents without the aid of a secondary accent, but 
adds that such writing is very rarely found. 
Meyer’s article is carefully reviewed by Louis Havet, Revue 
Critique 32 (1891), p. 207. The weakness of Meyer’s treatment of 
the form ————-—(—-—) 1s plainly brought out by Havet, who 
justly criticises Meyer’s confusion of certainly correct with question- 
able clausule. 
Other shorter notices by Jacob Wackernagel, Beitrage zur Lehre 
vom griechischen Akzent, Universitatsprogramm, Basel 1893, p. 7, 
and Gustav Meyer, Berliner philol. Wochenschrift, 1892, p. 182, ex- 
press unqualified approbation of the accentual law. Wackernagel 
finds the use of the grave accent in clausulz supporting his theory 
that this accent mark had come to indicate a stress simply without 
distinction from the acute or circumflex (p. 7). Indeed it would 
seem to be a general assumption that all kinds of accent are used 
indifferently and without distinction in the thesis of clausule1!; yet 
detailed statistics are required to make the situation absolutely 
certain, since there is no a priori reason for believing that already 
in the fourth century A.D. a grave accent had ceased to be distin- 
guished in value from an acute or circumflex, and that an acute and 
circumflex were merely different signs for the same stress accent, 
as they are in Modern Greek. Here the question may be stated in 
perfectly definite terms: do the writers who observe Meyer’s law 
use the grave, acute and circumflex indifferently in their clausule ? 
A detailed test of the law is offered by Curtius Kirsten, Quaes- 
tiones Choricianae (Breslauer philol. Abhandlungen, Band 7, Heft 2, 
1894), Pars Tertia, p. 36. The law of Meyer is adopted 7m foto 
by Kirsten, and the clausule all counted with a view to deter- 
mining the exact extent of the cursus law’s application in Choricius. 
Although only two percent of the total number are found irregular, 
Kirsten is unwilling to agree with Meyer’s statement that Choricius 
follows the law throughout: “Faveri videtur ‘legi’ Meyerianae”’; 
and he is unwilling to admit the test of the cursus law as a cri- 
terion in restoring Choricius’ text. Kirsten further criticises Meyer’s 
statement as to the treatment of ‘“Hilfswérter” in clausule, and 
very fairly declines to extend the same license without reserve to 
all adverbs and pronouns. Meyer’s doctrine of the secondary accent 
is strongly criticised. 

1 Cf. Litzica, Das Meyerische Satzschlussgesetz, p. 9, n. 2. 
