180) discusses the editions referred to by the Alexandrine critics (...), the influence of Didymus on our traditions about the Alexandrines, the value of the vulgate text compared with the papyri and testimonia, and the importance to be attached to the. readings preferred by the alexandrine critics, especially Aristarchus. Dr. V. concludes that the vulgate is very much more reliable tjan Ludwich and others have been inclined to believe, and that the readings ascribed to the great Alexandrines must be regarded as conjectures, and valued accordingly. He has no difficulty in showing that many of the Alexandrine critics' suggestions are due to ignorance of the epic diction, of the principles, and of the mentality of the archaic Greeks, In the second part (pp.181-285) Dr. V. discusses the special problem of the 'athetized' lines, (...) and shows how most of the ancient 'atheteses', including those usually accepted by modern editors, are due to the same faults of comprehension on the part of the Alexandrines as he has already diagnoses in Part I. He also examines the relation of Homer to Hesiod and the Cycle, and of the art of Homer, both in its virtues and its defects, and concludes that there is no good evidence, either internal or external, for large-scale interpolation in our vulgate text. (...) It will be manifest that this is a book of the utmost importance to all concerned with the text of Homer. (...). Even those who disagree with Dr. V.'s conclusions will find themselves compelled to admire the thoroughness and the scholarly soundness of his methods (...). Dr. V.'s work (...) has a good claim to be regarded as the most important contribution to Homeric studies since Schadewaldt's Iliasstudien of 1938. (J.A. DAVISON in The Classical Review, 1950, pp.54-55).