Το me εἰ δ ̓ οὖν seems to be required by the context and τότε to be otiose. I would read 555. καὶ ταῦτα ὁρῶν ἐλάνθανόν σφ'· εἰ δ ̓ οὖν κ.τ.λ. ει καὶ κυανέμβολοι θοαὶ The editor reads, for μισθοφόροι, ἱστοφόροι. It seems to me that ἱστοφόροι would be an anticlimax after the preceding words. Now μισθοφόροι is a παρὰ προσδοκίαν quite in the manner of Aristophanes, who even in his hymns to the Gods is mindful of his comic character. We have an exactly parallel jest in the following words: μειρακίων θ ̓ ἅμιλλα λαμ- καὶ—βαρυδαιμονόυντων. 821. The MSS. have παῦ' ουτοσί. Mr von Velsen reads conjecturally νῦν παῦ ̓ οὗτος. I should propose παῦ ̓ οὑτωσί. 1022. τί γάρ ἐστ' Ερεχθεῖ καὶ κολοιοῖς καὶ κυνί; So the MSS., and rightly as it seems to me. The mention of Erechtheus refers to the 'Ερεχθείδης of the oracle, line 1015 : 'What has Erechtheus to do with jackdaws and a dog?' 'What is there in common between them?' Bentley's conjecture 'Epexθείδῃ for Ερεχθεῖ καὶ leaves the line without a proper construction, and Mr von Velsen's 'Ερεχθείδῃ 'ν scarcely mends the matter. 1036. ὦ τάν, ἄκουσον, εἶτα διάκρινον τότε. Fortasse scribendum est: ὦ τάν, ἔτ ̓ ἄκουσον, εἶτα διάκρινον τόδε τόδε conjecit Meinekius)', von Velsen. If any change be needed we might read ΠΑΦ. ὦ τάν, ἄκουσον, εἶτα διάκρινον. ΔΗΜ. τὸ τί; 1242. Mr von Velsen gives the whole line to the 'Αλλαν τοπώλης. I would rather follow the MSS. in making Cleon interrupt him with καὶ τί; or I would read ΑΛΛ. ἠλλαντοπώλουν καί—ΠΑΦ. τί καί ; 1324. ΧΟΡ. πῶς ἂν ἴδοιμεν ; ποίαν τιν ̓ ἔχει σκευήν; ποῖος γεγένηται; ‘Spurium esse vidit Bergkius, von Velsen. I do not see why it should be rejected. The emphatic οἷός περ of the following line seems to require a preceding question. 1336. For eye; Mr von Velsen conjectures idov. I would read and punctuate as the Ravenna MS. does, according to my notes, éy That have I.' So ey is used to emphasize an assertion, not to be translated by an emphatic 'I,' Acharnians 202, and in other passages where its meaning has not generally been understood. 1373. οὐδεὶς ἐν τ ̓ ἀγορᾶ Venice MS. οὐδεὶς ἔν τ ̓ ἀγορᾷ Ambrosian. ἔν τ ̓ ἀγορᾷ οὐδείς Ravenna. Mr von Velsen prints ovdeìs év *** and proposes to fill the vacant space with Tole. I see no objection to read with Bekker and others οὐδεὶς ἐν ἀγορᾷ. 1401. κἀκ τῶν βαλανείων πίεται τὸ λούτριον. So Elmsley. The MSS. have all λούτρον or λουτρόν. Mr von Velsen adopts λOUTρiov. I have not seen the word elsewhere, and would read κἀκ τῶν βαλανείων πίεται τὸ λουτρόν. ΔΗΜ. εὖ, In these brief notes I have only mentioned a few points in which I venture to differ from the conclusions of the editor. No doubt in his explanatory notes he will have a great deal to say in defence of them. I have left unnoticed the many points in which I agree with him. The book is an excellent sample of faithful and conscientious work. W. G. CLARK. ON THE ἐν μέσῳ OF REV. V. 6, AND THE ἀνὰ μέσον OF 1 COR. VI. 5. And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain. Rev. v. 6, Authorized Version. So there is not among you any wise man who shall be able to judge between his brother? 1 Cor. vi. 5, literally rendered. The Greek of these passages in the best MSS. (the variations of which it would be ab re to discuss here) stands as follows: Καὶ εἶδον (+ καὶ ἰδοὺ, 5) ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζώων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς (or ἑστηκὼς κ) ὡς ἐσφαγμένον. And: Οὕτως οὐκ ἔνι (or ἔστιν, ς) ἐν ὑμῖν οὐδεὶς σοφὸς (or σοφὸς οὐδὲ εἷς, 5) ὃς δυνήσεται διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελ φοῦ αὐτοῦ; Every one who has read even the first few chapters of Genesis in the original, knows how the Hebrew idiom reduplicates the particle which is equivalent to our between (13) when the between governs two objects specified and distinguished. Thus what is rendered in our Version, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Gen. iii. 15), is literally "between thee and between the woman, and between thy seed and between her seed. In ix. 16, "the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh," is literally "covenant between Elohim and between every creature." So in c. i. 4, "God divided the light from the darkness" is "between the light and between the darkness"; and in like manner in v. 14, "between בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה) "the day and between the night (? Now the existence of Hebraisms in the New Testament has been fully and conclusively shown by Winer, Böckel, Webster and others. As an example, noticed by Webster though overlooked by Winer, and not recognized as a Hebraism by Bloomfield or Alford, I may quote the redundant use in several passages of the personal pronoun after the relative. Thus in Acts xv. 17, ἐφ ̓ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ ̓ αὐτούς, .. בָּהֶם which is just the Hebrew T Several instances of אֲשֶׁר. ..... this common and familiar Hebrew idiom may be found in the New Testament as in Mark vii. 25, Acts xv. 17, Eph. ii. 10, 1 Pet. ii. 24 (in & and other MSS.), Rev. vii. 2, 9. But it is especially in the Greek of the Revelation that solecisms of various kinds abound, and it can therefore excite should be found בֵּין...... וּבֵין no surprise if the peculiar use of there; and the object of this brief paper is to suggest that we have it in the passage quoted above from v. 6. I believe the true rendering of this verse to be as follows: And I saw BETWEEN the throne and the four living creatures (on the one hand) and the elders (on the other hand) a Lamb standing, as one that had been slain. I assume that in this vision, as in that described in the first chapter of Ezekiel's prophecies, the four living creatures are intimately associated with the throne itself. This seems implied by the manner in which they are mentioned in iv. 6. (κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου), v. 11, and xiv. 3. But in justification of this rendering of ev péow, it is important first to observe that it is evidently the same general sense that is conveyed by the ȧvà μéoov in vii. 17: тò åpvíov tò ảvà μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς, which all commentators and translators, so far as I am aware, take as nearly or quite equivalent to the ev μéow before us. What is the exact sense of this ȧvà μéσov in vii. 17 we will consider presently: the point to be noted now is its being (almost) synonymous with év μéow. For a comparison of the two passages seems conclusive on this point. But avà péσov is exactly the expression which the Seventy chose as the Greek rendering for the Hebrew, and they habitually repeat it just as is repeated. Thus in the LXX. version of Gen. i. 4, we find καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους. In v. 14 of the same chapter: τοῦ διαχωρίζειν ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς νυκτός. In Gen. iii. 15: καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ ȧvà μέσον σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς. And such, so far as I have observed, is the usual rendering of throughout the Septuagint though occasionally בֵּין...... וּבֵין the latter is left untranslated, as in Gen. xiii. 8: μỳ čoтW μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (τ......99), though the next clause is perfectly literal—καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου. Of the reduplicated ávà péσov other instances will be found in Ex. viii. 23, and xxvi. 33, Judg. iv. 5, 1 Sam. vii. 14, 1 Kin. xxii. 34, Jer. vii. 5, Ezek. xxxiv. 20, Zech. xi. 14. And just so in Latin inter is sometimes repeated, as in Hor. Sat. 1. 7. 11, where see Macleane's note; though this is not a recognized idiom of the Latin language. Bentley calls it "vitiosum sane loquendi genus et ἰδιωτικόν.” But an obvious difficulty in the way of the interpretation here suggested is found in the ȧvà μéσov of vii. 17, which seems intelligible, or possibly intelligible, as commonly rendered"the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd," while "between the throne" seems at the first glance destitute of meaning. Is it possible that the ȧvà μéσov may indicate the interval between two objects of which one only is specified, and the other is understood? I think this is clearly the case in the verse from 1 Cor. vi. above quoted, “who shall be able to judge between his brother?" As to the reading neither Tregelles nor Alford gives any variant on |