Sp. Vasis.—Passage of Dio applied to correct conclusions of Willems on Cic. ad Att. 5, 4, 2. (ΑΘΗΝΑ, Vol. 1, parts 3-4.)

—— A review of E. Cornelius (Quomodo Tacitus historiæ scriptor in hominum memoria versatus sit usque ad renascentes litteras sæc. XIV et XV.—Dio is indirectly involved.). (Jhrb. d. phil. Ver. zu. Berlin, 1889.)

—— A review of C.J. Rockel. (Title cited under 1887.—Jhrb. of I. Müller.)

1890.

U. Ph. Boissevain.—A misplaced fragment of Dio (LXXV, 9, 6). (Hermes, Vol. 25, part 3.)

Th. Hultzsch.—On Dio Cassius (relative to early alteration of the text). (N. JB. f. Ph. u. Pä., Vol. 141, book 3.)

Karl Jacoby.—A review of Maisel. (Title cited under 1889.—B.P.W., Feb. 15.)

Melber.—Regarding the chronological relocation of several fragments of Dio. (Bl. f. d. Bayer. Gymn., Vol. 26, books 6 and 7.)

—— A citation of the Kontos note (see above) from ΑΘΗΝΑ. (Rev. d. Et. Gr., Vol. 3, N. 9.)

1891.