The ninth Pythian is one of Pindar's masterpieces. It contains the romantic story of the love of Apollo for the heroic nymph Cyrene, which is the foundation-legend of the great city, and he attaches to the end of the ode another graceful love-tale which was a family tradition of the athlete's ancestors. The style of the ode is suitable to the subject, and the rhythm is partly Dorian, partly Lydian. Therefore the grand style which is maintained throughout, the style in which Pindar always excels, is richly mellowed and tempered with a certain lusciousness, a rarer quality of his work, but appropriate here to the romantic theme. And Pindar combines here the energy which is his birthright with a certain dignified ease and clearness, and his besetting faults of harshness, bitterness, or overpungency and overstrain are absent altogether. ‘Out of the strong hath come forth sweetness.’

The sense appears to be somewhat as follows: ‘An ill-fated army of “Siceli” shall come, bringing terror with it; but God shall give them evil and not good. Again and again stranger shall plunder stranger.’

It neither is nor need be doubted that tutamen opis, preserved like many another true lection in the margin of G and R, is what Catullus wrote. The tutū opus which OGR present in their texts is a simple error arising from the abbreviation of tamen as . But the verse still fails to satisfy and is universally esteemed corrupt. The description of Peleus as dear exceedingly to his yet unborn and unbegotten son is so absurd a form of address that all editors now adopt from the interpolated MSS the conjecture ‘clarissime nato.’ This description is neither absurd nor untrue, but it is yet untimely, and sorts ill with the bridegroom's other titles. The ‘decus eximium,’ the ‘magnae uirtutes,’ the ‘tutela Emathiae,’ all are already his: the glory reflected from his heroic son belongs to the future and is part of that prophecy to which in the next two verses he is bidden to give ear. clarissime nupta would be appropriate, and would resemble 25 ‘eximie taedis felicibus aucte’ and Ouid. met. XI 217 sq. ‘coniuge Peleus | clarus erat diua’; but ‘most illustrious in thy son’ breaks away from the rest of this prelude and forestalls what is to come in 338 and the following verses. There is therefore an undercurrent of feeling that even now all is not well: ‘de coniectura ilia dubitari potest, cum propriae Pelei ipsius uirtutes hie praedicentur’ says Baehrens, and Schwabe even proposes so wretched an alternative as ‘carissime fato.’

After I had put myself the task of investigating the correctness of the results obtained by Heibges concerning the clausulae of Chariton, I decided to determine the frequency in which the different rhythmical forms appear in the authors of non-rhythmical works. For that purpose I investigated the prose works of Thucydides and Plutarch as carefully and in as specified a form as was possible. This I did with the intention to compare the percentages with those of Heibges. In this comparison, however, I came to the conclusion that the figures for Thucydides and Plutarch differed considerably, and that in such a way that certain conclusions could be drawn concerning the manner in which Plutarch constructed his clausulae according to fixed rules.

A foot is lacking at the beginning of line. Perhaps add <μ⋯κραν> to go with ναυστολ⋯, lost after the end of I. 12. Silenus expatiates on the με⋯ζονα πόνον of I. 10.

The fact that Greek ζ = Indo-European j in the words ζειαί, ζέω, ζ⋯λος, ζόρξ, ζυγόν, , and ζωρός may be regarded as fairly well established (Boisacq, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 307, 309, 196 sq., 311 sq.; cf. also Berneker, Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, i. 447 sq.; most recent bibliography in Brugmann, Griechische Grammatik,4 151 sq.), despite the counter-arguments of Sommer (Griechische Lautstudien, 137–160; cf. also Pedersen, KZ. xxxvi. 103 sq., Meillet, Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, 88).

Page 101, line 9: For ‘ille quidem’ read ‘ille quidam.’

〃 101, paragraph 4, line 6: For ‘uiscera sunt’ read ‘uiscera sint.’

〃 102, line 17: For ‘two emendations’ read ‘four emendations.’

〃 102, line 20: For ‘3’ read ‘4.’

〃 102, line 9 from foot: For ‘ears’ read ‘ear.’