^{page 68 note 1} My information about the readings of the manuscript and the suggestions of critics comes from the editions of Wecklein (1898), Murray (1913), Grégoire (1950), and Campbell (1950). I regret that, with the exception of Paley, not one of the older and recent commentaries has been accessible to me. I apologize beforehand if any of my suggestions should prove to have been anticipated by others. I have, however, greatly profited from the observations of W. B. Sedgwick, who read a draft of these notes. Finally I must record the privilege and pleasure of a correspondence with Mr. D. W. Lucas. His patient and profitable criticism has induced me to reconsider and rewrite my last section. The delay thus caused has enabled me at last to see the valuable commentaries of A. C. Pearson (1903) and G. Italie (1949)—if without gain for my present, limited subject.

^{page 68 note 2} In Hec. 635 , on the other hand, the connotation of in the first and second place, so different that the iteration does not produce the effect of an anaphora at all. Since the anaphora of prepositions is very rare in Euripides, the point at issue may be further illustrated by reference to, for example, Suppl. 631 or Phoen. 320

^{page 69 note 1} I am aiming at a suitable metre but not at responsion with a later part of what I consider, with most students, to be an epode. Attempts at bisecting it into a pair of responding strophes involve some rather violent rewriting; they are, moreover, prejudiced by the fact that comparable songs consisting of three pairs of strophes can be quoted from Sophocles (the Parodos of O.T. and, in a way, of Phil.), but not from Euripides (one would not, I suppose, hold up LA. 164 ff. against this assertion; in H.F. 348 ff. the rhythmical refrain [cf. Wilamowitz, Herakles, ii.² 80] and in the Parodos of Suppl. the change of metre [v. 71; cf. A. Pers. 115] make all the difference). If none the less this form were introduced here, it would be odd that the two preceding pairs are divided between Helen and the Chorus, but not so the third. The transmitted form corresponds to the Parodos of Ba. (v. 135–67).

^{page 69 note 2} G. Hermann, in the course of a very different reconstruction, read

^{page 69 note 3} I have been much tempted by Wilamowitz's reading for However, if this conjecture is combined with the transmitted wording of v. 236, many of the objections formulated above remain; if the reading suggested is there adopted, the expansion of the latter only of the two clauses would seem illogical.

^{page 69 note 4} e.g. Hel. 264 f.; cf. also, for example, v. 974, where (Hermann) (Nauck) for is, I suppose, unavoidable. As Paley notes, the same holds good of Andr. 707.

^{page 69 note 5} Thus, for example, Koch, R., De anacol. ap. Eurip. (Dissert. Hal. 1881), 41.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 6} Esp. Andr. 668 and Hipp. 23, Med. 595, I.T. 695, 947, Ph. 283, Ba. 843; cf. Wilamowitz, ad Her. 186.

^{page 69 note 7} Those who would retain the interpolated vv. 257–9 show that they have not understood this speech. The same applies to vv. 298–302.

^{page 69 note 8} v. 279 ( Cobet).

^{page 70 note 1} This conjecture had practically been anticipated by Brunck, who suggested (ad Aesch. Prom. 1021; summarized in the Glasgow edition of Euripides ad loc). I do not know that anyone has believed him; hence it has seemed worth while to argue the point again.

^{page 70 note 2} Cf. Hel. 541; Hec. 488, 876; Suppl. 1143; H.F. 1094–1101; 10 429; Or. 153; A. Prom. 593 Ag. 681, 1141, 1194; Hom. Od. 9. 447, etc.

^{page 70 note 3} The passages which A. C. Pearson ad loc. quotes in defence of the present are not truly parallel.

^{page 70 note 4} Preceded by , an interrogative ind. fut. does indeed stand for an imperative. It would, however, be vain to introduce this form here (by the questionable device of two alterations!); for this is how an acknowledged master addresses his subordinates (‘won't you hurry up and bury?’). If Menelaus had used this strong form here, he would thereby have demonstrated that the alleged strangers actually were his men. He does use it, characteristically, after he has taken over command (v. 1561; cf. I.T. 1423).

^{page 71 note 1} See w. 737 ff.

^{page 71 note 2} I have here ventured to quote Mr. Lucas, with whose analysis I fully agree.

^{page 71 note 3} I had previously thought of and . Mr. Lucas has criticized the former with arguments which I cannot refute. of course would be the easiest possible alteration from the palaeographical point of view, but it effects too abrupt a transition (I do not feel that even H.F. 240 would be a sufficient parallel). For cf. Hel. 477, Or. 1337, Andr. 989.