^{page 33 note 1} Jebb mistranslates ‘And was there none to tell?’ The Greek for that is ούδ΄ ἂγγελος ούδείς…

^{page 33 note 2} With its variant κατ⋯λθεν οὖ, Schwartz, rec Bruhn.

^{page 33 note 3} κατεȋπ may very well have owed its cortell ruption largely to εἶδε in the reply; what answers to it is of course not that but ϕρόσαɩ.

^{page 34 note 1} Strictly, I deduced έν κ. π. myself from Erfurdt's change, and then found that I had been anticipated by Tournier.

^{page 34 note 2} For ἂρα with interrogatives, cf. Denniston, , Particles, pp. 39 fGoogle Scholar. δ ἂρα is very common in Greek with the sense of δέ plus the sense of ἃρα.

^{page 35 note 1} It is so odd, that Hermann and Blaydes were both driven to supposing that it must mean ‘But why again be thus angry (at what I suggest)?’ (Hermann, coll. Eur. El. 1120)Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 2} Truth to tell, the ‘Seven against Thebes’ was ex hypothesi an ad hoc muster, such as would never have reassembled, and least of all for a different purpose; but once more that mischievous αύθις in 1420 (reinforced probably—for many—by the false αΰ in 1418, on which see below) has made everybody think of P. as attacking Thebes again after abandoning expedition, although this is sheer nonsense.

^{page 35 note 3} I would not read αύτός, with τρέσας, as would not account for our tradition. I thought of τούμόν (which was proposed by Blaydes, forty years after his edition, Adv. Crit. in Soph. p. 135)Google Scholar, but dismissed it as too emphatic.

^{page 35 note 4} But not, oddly enough, the best and simplest, εϊς ἃπαξ τρέσας; which I therefore here offer to those who will not have ίταμόν.

^{page 36 note 1} Actually, οε is impossible; it turns στρέψαι into infin. act., whereas the syntax of 1417 proves 1416 to have been imperative.

^{page 36 note 2} This I infer from Jebb, although he omits the comma; I have not yet run Badham's note to earth, but I find no record of any change of στρέψαι other than Blaydes'.