Anm. af Aristotle's Const. of Athens, by Sandys. 87 authorities followed in the ?49. πολ., but contains nothing essentially new. Ch. IX gives an ‘Abstract of the ‘A9. 702., ch. X a valuable ‘Conspectus of the Literature of the A40. πολ... In this my Spicilegium Aristoteleum (nord. tidskr. f. filol., ny r., X 281 f.) is missing; while in the Addenda Notulis Criticis the editor quotes Blass, Mitteilungen aus Papyrushandschriften, as well as my German edition of chapters I—XLI. The foundation for the settling of the 7ezt has been the facsimile (Preface p. VIII); Mr. Sandys has, however, examined the papyrus in cases of greater importance. The apparatus criticus is given in Latin footnotes and must on the whole be called satisfactory, with the exception that some good conjectures are not considered worth mentioning. On the contrary, I find the critical treatment of the text too conservative; as I do not intend to give an oratio pro domo, I shall nevertheless in the following conspectus principally limit myself to whatever new the editor has contributed. Chapter II § 1. While in the text the words τὸν δῆμον are bracketed, in the commentary he proposes either διαστῆσαι (with Herwerden-Leeuwen) or δεαστασιάσαι, defending this by two places in the πολιτικά (1303 b 26 and 1306 ἃ 3). IIl 3.. ἀντὶ τῶν δοϑεισῶν (Kenyon?) is corrected to ἄντασπο δοϑεισῶν, Corresponding privileges being assigned to the archon’; but to what those privileges should ‘correspond’, is unfortunately not explained. In the same § he proposes supplying μᾶλλον instead of μόνον before τὰ ἐπίϑετα, scarcely in accordance with the preceding words: τὸ μηδὲν τῶν πατρίων κτλ. In 8 5 Mr. Sandys instead of the αλληωνησαν of the papyrus writes ἀλλήλων. ὥκησαν, which is more difficult than ἀλλήλων. ἦσαν and not necessary. VII 4 he retains ἄν before κείμενον and strengthens its use with examples drawn from the other works of Aristotle; on the contrary, I find him rather rash in bracketing ἐκ μαρτυρῶν as corrupted from τεκμήριον ‘ad explicandum sensum quondam adscriptum’. VIII 5 Mr. Sandys proposes [περιορ᾿ῶντας τὸ ἀποβαῖνον, a fine and yet not very difficult correction, though hardly necessary. ἔϑηκ εν, Which Wessely and afterwards Blass have read in the papyrus, is not quoted. X 2 he, in accordance with Ridgeway, explains the traditional text (τρεῖς καὶ ἑξήκοντα μνᾶς) thus, ‘Solon made his new talent consist of 63 old minae of the average BEuboic weight’, ‘possibly to adjust his silver currency to the standard gold unit’; but then the αὔξησις τῶν σταϑμῶν referred to in § 1 remains unexplained. The reading of Blass: αἵ γ΄ μναῖ is only mentioned in the Addenda; in the text ἐπιδιενεμήϑησαν is interpreted: were divided into fractions consisting of ete. XII 4. The two first verses of the fragment are read as Blass does and explained according to Jebb: ‘But, as to the ends, for which I formed the popular party, or gathered the