448 HI. B. Dewing, 
who comes within its influence, but rather a fashion (Mode) which 
some writers consciously ignored. Litzica, as noted above, protests. 
against the use of the word law at all; but there is still need to 
repeat all the tests made by him with the correct form of the law 
as stated above, and it is doubtful whether a single writer whom 
he classed as knowing nothing of the cursus will be found to be 
entirely outside the influence of Meyer’s law. From Part IV it will 
appear that Procopius of Czesarea, whom he considered far outside 
the law’s influence, is really under the influence of the “fashion”. 
The law is certainly much more far reaching in its application 
among the Byzantine writers than Litzica found it. This fact 
makes it evident that we are dealing with a law which some 
writers obeyed strictly, while the great majority of writers only 
showed a more or less decided tendency to conform to it. In some 
writers absolute regularity may fairly be expected, just as is the 
case with certain Latin writers such as Ammianus Marcellinus ; 
each writer must be considered separately in order to determine 
where this condition exists. When the traditional text of a writer 
shows as much as ten percent of irregularity, we may well hesitate 
to insist that every clausula should be forced into regularity by 
doing violence to written accents or emendation of the text, but 
some principle should be found for editing such a text. Since the 
manuscript tradition is of the greatest importance in settling this 
question, this must always be carefully considered and used in the 
light of the cursus law. The final resuit for any writer who has 
a cursus can not be given until the complete evidence of the 
manuscripts is brought to bear. For the present it is only safe to 
say that it is not known whether such writers as Zosimus and 
Agathias intended to show absolutely regular conformity to the 
law or not. 
Part [V.—Procopius oF CHSAREA. 
It is well understood that different writers of the classical period 
of Greek literature differed in their use of the quantitative rhythm. 
In some it is found very plainly marked, while in others it is used 
with much les§ care, while others again can be said to have no 
regular quantitative rhythm at all. The same situation may reason- 
ably be expected in the Byzantine writers: there are plainly certain 
writers who have an accentual cursus, but seem to admit much 
more license in following the law than the best writers. In each 
ae 
a 
- ae 

