46 Colorado College Studies. 



§ 369 and Krtiger 54. 8. 12. Some of Blaydes' passages are 

 not to the point and in others the verbs are indicative. 



Vs. 575. «» Toifibrartn iVsarttt', Ssupo rdv vouv —oinriy^re. 



So the MSS. and Tenff. ( Kaehler ). Kock and Mein. follow 

 Bentley in reading -(n'layzTz. Dindorf and Blaydes -i,i,(T<Tyt7t^ 

 in order to avoid the tribrach in the fourth dipody. 



Blaydes brings forward a number of passages to show 

 that the verb is not exclusively in the present tense. These 

 are worth examining; what he does not tell us is, that in every 

 case cited from Aristoph. the best MSS. have the present. 



Of the sixteen passages he cites, Nub. 635, Eq. 1014, Pax 

 174. Thesm. 25, 381, Plut. 113, Pherecrat. II 340, Cratin. II 

 189, Antiph. Ill 29, Alex. Ill 508, may be dismissed off hand 

 as giving simply -in'iatyt ruv vo-jv, generally in trimeter, and 

 without a variant. 



In Nub. 1122 (Trochaic tetram.), Eq. 503 (anapaestic 

 tetram.), Vesj). 1015 (anapaestic tetram.), Av. 688 (anapaes- 

 tic tetram. ) and in the present passage, the MSS. agree in 

 giving -i>i>aiyj.-z. (In Vesp. 1015 />' J have -poayz-t^ but RV show 

 -poaiytzz.). Bentley changed throughout to -ponytrs, and is 

 followed by most editors. Dindorf prefers -pu^ayzTt through- 

 out, while Bergk, Teuff. and Kaehler retain the present. 

 Blaydes is hopelessly inconsistent both in text and commen- 

 tary, vacillating from one reading to another. In his latest 

 note, however, (addenda vs. 575 Nub.), he inclines to Dindorfs 

 view. In view of this, Kaehler's note, (Anhang p. 197), is to 

 the point: "Die Herausgeber liaben vielfach in -pixrysrs 

 r.poffirysze geaendert, ohne Grund, wie es sicli nacli dieser 

 auffaelligen Uebereinstimmung zeigt, nur einem metrischem 

 Gesichtspunkte zu liebe." 



There remain two instances of -puaKryt (one is plural), 

 Eupolis II 438-K. 37, and II 575=K. 386, (the first is not in 

 Kaehler or in Jacobi's index s. v. vus-), and finally Blaydes 

 omits the only instance of the aorist in comedy, Pherecrates 

 II 283=79 K. -pntrysze zov voDv. In so short a fragment met- 

 rical grounds cannot be conclusive, but this aorist may be so 

 accounted for. 



