^{page 197 note 1} For a statement of the reasons see Mr. Underbill's recent commentary.

^{page 198 note 1} It has been suggested that in the three passages we should read ὡς ἥνυτον &c. for ὡς ἤνοιγον &c., and this gives us just the right sense, as best they could, &c. In Ar. Rhet. 3. 9. 1409 b 4, the best MS. has by a blunder νογειν for ντειν, and in Plut. Mor. 130 D νοιστν is a blunder for νυοστν (ὡς νυστν στι). We have Anab. 1. 8. 11 ὡς νυστν and R. L. 1. 3 and, if ὡς ἥνυτον does not occur elsewhere in X., neither does ὡς ἤνοιγον. But it would be strange for the same mistake to occur in three successive places.