The Argive herald is dissuading the king from championing the cause of his petitioners. ‘It is either because they have detected some stupidity that they have come here to you, or because, being in a hopeless position, they are just chancing their arm to see whether or not . For I doubt if they expect that, in your right senses, you would, etc’ For the alleged impersonal use of (‘employed in a sense similar to that of our colloquial to come off, Pearson) editors can quote only two passages of Aeschylus, which I transcribe from Page's text: Su. 527–8 , Ch. 378–9 (‘non intellegunturjmutilum esse iudico inclusis scholiorum fragmentis’, Page).

The Arabic translation of the De Gen. Anim., made at the beginning of the ninth century by Yahyā ibn al-Bitrīq from a Syriac version, contains seven long omissions, noted by Drossaart Lulofs in his edition. Six of these represent approximately 110 letters or a multiple thereof in the Greek: 728b33–729a2 (226, or 224 with Z), 761a9–25 (658, or 661 with Z), 762a6–8 (112, or 106 with Z), 762b34–763a2 (107, or 101 with Z), 768a18–20 (110) and 781a7–12 (225, or 223 with Z). The seventh omission (787b22–788b30) is too long to be useful, as the scope for accidental errors is too great.

I have not seen the papyrus, but if β and μ are correctly reported, and if the space between would admit three letters, I tentatively suggest . sed haec quidem (sunt) uituperatio.

There are three things to be noticed with regard to ἤκoυoευ ⋯ Λευκíφφη άυoιλoμέυωυ τωυ (a) the hiatus; (b) the fact that in every other place where Achilles Tatius uses άκoὐω with the genitive of the source of the sound and an appended participle the participle always belongs to a verb of speaking used literally (λέγoυτoς 1.8.2.16; 2.36.3.8; ειφόυτoς 3.21.6.13; λαλoὐνς 3.18.1.12 (sc. ταὐτης); ςιαλεγoμέυωυ 2.26.1.15; φoτυιωμέυης 6.15.4.28; ὐφoκπρωoμέυoυ 7.11.1.6) or metaphorically (2.14.8.15 άκoυσαι. . . του ὐδατoς λαλoυυτoς); (c) 2.23.6.11–12 τòυ ψóφoυ άκoὐσας άυoιγoμέυωυ τωυ υυρωυ.

Mr. Reeve has shown beyond question that the vulgate is corrupt: ‘ marks exaggerations, is not an exaggeration (or sense in the context), and there is therefore something wrong with the text.’