^{page 117 note 1} Thuc. V. 27.

^{page 117 note 2} Thuc. V. 48.

^{page 117 note 3} Thuc. V. 47.

^{page 117 note 4} Thuc. V. 45.

^{page 117 note 5} Plut. Alc., εργον ν τν ٨ακεδαἱμονα περιγενέσθαι.

^{page 119 note 1} See Verrall, A. W., Euripides the Rationalist, pp. 1–138Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 2} See J.A.S., in C.R., Vol. XXXIII., p. 9Google Scholar.

^{page 122 note 1} LI. 826–827, ρκσαι=defend.

^{page 122 note 2} LI. 165 sq. This argument is really a very powerful one: for a king (a tragedy king, always democratic and constitutional as befits a ruler of free Athens) to incur the responsibility of a war on behalf of third parties was a tricky business, unless he had the people's entire consent. Compare Pelasgus' hesitation in Aesch, , Suppl., I. 313 (341)Google Scholar. Demophon had been roused to anger by the behaviour of Copreus, and had spoken (and acted) as arrogantly as he; but when he had had time to cool down, and had seen the Argive army face to face, he was much less violent! The analogy of such a situation with that at Athens in the early part of 419 B.C. is fairly evident.

^{page 123 note 1} Brodeau's note ad loc. in the Oporinns (Basle) Euripides of 1562, p. 740, reads as follows: ‘Nemo id si factum est, miretur, cum nulla olim gens fuerit, quae humana uictima diis sacra non fecerit.’

^{page 123 note 2} Euripides, ed. Paley, , London, 1872, Vol. I., p. 374Google Scholar; ‘Besides, the sacrifices meant seem rather to be those of the Argive army … mentioned at 673.’

^{page 123 note 3} The Heraclidae, Cambridge, 1907, p. 118Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 4} E.g. Schol. Ar. Eq. 1151; Paus. I. xxxii. 6 Zenob, . Prou. II. 61Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 1} Quaest. Graec. 38.

^{page 124 note 2} Compare Myres, J. L. in J.H.S. XXXVII. 197Google Scholar; Attic tragedy is to be referred to ‘an age in which, as the tragedians and their audience believed, human sacrifices and substituted victims were not regarded as anything out of the common.’

^{page 124 note 3} Anal. Eur., p. 152.

^{page 125 note 1} A. W. Verrall, note ad loc. in his edition of the Septam; and Valckenaer, , note to his Hippolytus, I. 1226Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 2} Klotz, note ad loc. in his edition of the Medea; Paley, ditto.

^{page 125 note 3} Scholia, in Arist., Vol. II., p. 191 (Oxford, 1835)Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 4} ‘The body of notes to each several play … declares itself a separate entity.’ Rutherford, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation, PP. 23–25Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 5} C.R. XIV., p. 438.

^{page 125 note 6} Thuc. V. 28.

^{page 125 note 7} As Decharme suggests, Euripide et l'Esprit de son Théâtre, p. 198.

^{page 125 note 8} The traditional genealogy was as follows(excluding gods):

^{page 126 note 1} De trag. Gr., p. 190.

^{page 126 note 2} Such a period would begin after the battle of Mantinea (summer of 418), and last until the building of the long walls of Argos was begun in the next year.

^{page 126 note 3} LI. 340, 364, etc.

^{page 126 note 4} L. 741.

^{page 126 note 5} Because of this distinction between the tyrant Eurystheus and the rightful heirs of Argos and Mycenae (the Heracleidae), I cannot agree with Decharme (op. cit.) that ‘Argos n'était pas l'alliée d' Athènes,’ though concurring that ‘le choix d' un pareil sujet ne prouve point nécessairement que les deux cités fussent ennemies.’

^{page 126 note 6} LI. 1026 sq.

^{page 126 note 7} II. 54.

^{page 126 note 8} Compare A. W. Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist, passim, etc.

^{page 126 note 9} Op. cit., p. 152.

^{page 127 note 1} L. 1658.

^{page 127 note 2} Schol, , Av. Thesm., I. 1012Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 3} Hermes XI. 302.

^{page 127 note 4} Fr.462(Nauck).

^{page 127 note 5} LI. 4–5.

^{page 128 note 1} E.g. Verrall's essays; Norwood's Riddle of the Bacchac, etc.

^{page 128 note 2} Thuc. V. 51.