MR. MARTIN seems to have misread my table. He professes to summarize its last two rows, but he has got the last but one all wrong, and the last he omits altogether. My last row but one signifies: In the matter of a following disyllabic thesis Phaedria, Pamphilĕ, and Parmenō behave exactly alike: no argument here either for or against Phaedriā. The last row speaks plainly: If Phaedria were a cretic, we should expect to find it used as a cretic at least six times. Mr. Martin had found it so used once, and I noted that this one example was in fact an ablative–a strange coincidence. But this was not, as Mr. Martin says, the only ‘error’ of which I ‘convicted’ him. I also, and primarily, pointed out that what he called ‘the significant thing’, viz. that the scansion Phaedriâ was never inevitable, held no significance whatever, since all dactylic words were in the same case.