^{page 30 note 1} Whether I am honest in affixing the asterisk to all three words I am unable to decide. I evolved them long ago from my inner consciousness, but discovered later from Jebb that Hermann, at some time prior to 1805, proposed: θʹ αι πρόσθʹ ἂνω | πτωκάδες...λσί μʹ, but had in 1827 abandoned his idea in favour of the impossibility: ἲθʹ, αίθέρος ἂνω...ἒλωσί μʹ κτέ.—As to the alternative indicated above (ἲθʹ αίπάρος κτ.), * I regard it as perhaps metrically possible, but certainly improbable: for Rader macher's remark, on 1098 f.: ‘Ueberhaupt zeigt das ganze Chorlied eine freie Behandlung der Responsion’, is applicable chiefly to his own text.

^{page 31 note 1} Phalaris, who is cultured, would himself have said κατέχη but Abaris came from the frozen North, and had only seen the world from an arrow. He therefore uses the conventional style of the barbarous letter-writer, with a tendency to lapse into the archaic and to be chary of the definite article (e.g. in this epistle, θύαιν σήν and πολίτην σόν: ϕίλοις Amasis ap. Hercher, p. 100; μ ϕωνή Anacharsis ep. 1. σς θύρας ib. 2, etc.). Hercher omits the word altogether with some of his doctored manuscripts. He says himself: ‘Quodsi quis coniecturis suis tentarevoluerit Phalaridea, meo usus apparatu Lennesaid pianum non desiderabit.’ The contrary affirma- tive struck me as much nearer the truth.

^{page 31 note 2} What Wilamowitz meant is none too clear: for it is perfectly obvious that there is not the shadow of a connexion between the ὑπόκειται. and 191 and the κεῖται of 183: οὑτος πρωτογόνων ἴσως | οἲκων (ἣκων Suid. E, ‘lectio verissima’ Pors. Advv. 199) οὐδενς ὒστερος | πάντων ἂμμορος ν βίῳ | κεῖται μονος πʹ ἂλλων | στικτν | ἣ λασίων μετ | θηρν κτ.

^{page 32 note 1} A few miscellaneous examples are: πίτηδες = π τσδε Lys. xxii. 9; γυναῖκες = αίύνες id. Fr. 154 B.-S.; Διϕίλου = Φειδύλου Alciphr. i.29; Μαλιακῷ = Λαμιακῷ Strab. 446; π ακίνους = ς Πικηνούς Procop. t. ii. 429,3 Haury; ποϕλορησάντων = πλοϕορησάντων Jul. ep. 152 Bidez-Cumont; εὑρʹ ὃπως = εὐπόρως (Schoe- amann) Antiph. Herod, caed. 76; κάστῳ = κεστῷ, ib. 91; ὃ γε μισθός = γʹ θισμός (Wilamowitz) Antig. Car. ap. Ath. 547 F; νάρξου = ξάρνου D. Hal. Lys. § 26; χεδών = χὠ δʹ ν Mosch. iii. 54; ὡς ἂρα = ὣρας D. Chrys. vii. 117; δειχθεῖσαν = εἰδχθειαν Wisd. xvi. 3; ὡς εῖναι = ὡσανεί (ita leg.) Ach. Tat. iii. 24, and so, sporadically, everywhere. In the dramatists, examples plentiful enough, though seldom striking, typical HerwerΟακεύεις = καθεύδεις Eur, . I.A. 623Google Scholar; χώρει νεκρν = χρεών I.T. 118; οὐδείς = οὓς δεῖ (Badham) ib. 1213; δτα λίαν Med. 929; κπλέξαι = κκλέΨαι (the error emendano means always optical) Hel. 741; τά τʹ ξ = τε τξ Soph, . O.C. 453Google Scholar; αὐθήδης (A⁺) = αὐδηθείς Trach. 1106; κξεκήρυξε (i.e. κκʹ ξήρυξε) = κκʹ ξήρυκε Phil. 423; πόντων (Harl.) = ντόπων ib. 1171; νέτικτε = τέγκτε Ar. Thesm. 1047; δέμας = δεσμά ib. 1125; ζήλας (v') = λήξας Rhes. 790; τέτοκε (L) = τέκετο Phoen. 649; κακκαβίζουον = κικκαβάζονον (Dobree) Ar. Lys. 761; ρματωλίας = μαρτωλίας Pac. 415 (cf. ῥιμϕαρμάτοις (L¹) O.C. 1062)—el similia ntulta.

^{page 32 note 2} He wrote: οὒκ, στι τ σ δʹ δὺ προσθέσθαι ϕρενί (‘il me plaît d'accér à ton humeur’—the sense which the commentators assign to the vulgate). Radermacher wished to excise 1058–60, and Wecklein mentions a few wild proposals: e.g. οὐκ ἓστι νείκη δʹ ήσύχῳ σχήσω ϕρενί (Camper), οὐ δθʹ. ὃ τ σ δʹήδὺπροσθήσενις ϕρενί (Herwercases den). He himself, for unspecified reasons, con- = jectured προσϕύσω.

^{page 32 note 3} A good parallel for the corruption is Ax. by 1312 το σο θʹ μαίμονος, where, as an emendano tion, Bergk's σο το θʹ μαίμονος is as excellent as Bothe's το σο γʹ μαίμονος is puerile.

^{page 33 note 1} This impossible verb I attempt later to emend.

^{page 34 note 1} This historical fact does not stand out with clarity in Or. 1073 f.:

Op. οὐκ ἓκτανες σν μητέρʹ, ὡς γὼ τάλας. Πυ. σὺν σοί γε κοιν. ταὐτ κα πάσχειν με δεῖ.

All explanations are as futile as Hermann's σὺμητέρʹ. If the lines are to have a meaning, there is no alternative to: Πυ. σὺν ἒμοιγε κοιν κτέ.

^{page 35 note 1} I select this word from his Spirited: ώς ἂστυ πάτριον κα τ Καδμείων πέδον πεσὼν ῥανν ϕόνῳ.

^{page 36 note 1} Like others of his variants, it must derive ultimately from an uncial manuscript of another family. It is as childishly honest as his οὐδΝ ΛΙ άζοντα for οὐδν ἂζονθʹ at O.C. 134, his ρά μου μέμνησθ ὂταν (1.μεμνσθ᾽ ἒτ ἂν,* and for proof see Cobet, , N.L. 223–6Google Scholar) for μέμνησθ᾽ ὃτι (LA⁺: ἒτι dett., vulg.) at O.T. 1401, or possibly even—though it may be foolhardy to say so—his τήνδε θεοπίζει γραϕήν for τήνδ᾽ ἒπιοτροϕήν at O.T. 133 (παξίως γρ Φοῖβος, ξίως δ σὺ | πρ το θανόντος τήνδ᾽ ἒθεοθ᾽ πιοτροϕήν). Jebb, with Pearson after him, selected this as the crowning instance of his ‘worthless conjectures, remarkable, in some instances, for their temerity’. That it is a conjecture, and worthless, and temerarious, must be granted; but it may be doubted, in the first place, whether it is a conjecture by ‘2', and, in the second, whether it is a conjecture upon τήνδ᾽ ἒθεσθ᾽ πιστροϕήν. In some early manueri script, I should imagine, was accidentally omitted after in the sequence What remained for the consideration of his successor was τηνδε θεσπιοτροϕην and, by taking thought, he arrived happily at the version which Σ dutifully recorded for the good of an unthankful posterity.

^{page 38 note 1} For the eternal confusion of α and αν, see, for instance, Bast, , C.P. 705 f., 914 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 1} It is possible, indeed, that the messenger has already been a sufferer. For vv. 335–8 run thus:

αλ, Αγ. αὐτο γε πρτον βαιν μμείνασ᾽, ὃπως μάθης, ἂνευ τνδ᾽, οὓστινάς τ᾽ ἃγεις ἒσω ν τ᾽ οὐδν είοήκουσας κμάθης ἃ δεῖ. τούτων ἒχω γρ πάντ᾽πιστήμην γώ..

The last line bears prima facie no resemblance to Greek, and Greek it is certainly not proved tolerto be by Jebb; who, faced with the task of producing an adverbial πντα accompanying a transitive verb with a direct object expressed, alleges merely two instances of a usage which no selfman ever doubted—that of πντα accompanying cognian intransitive verb (γνώμης πατρῴας πάντ᾽ ὂπιοθεν στάναι Ant. 640, πάνθ᾽ γουμέην Phil. 99). The few conjectures carry no conviction: the best may be Wakefield's κάρτ᾽ (cf. Eur, . Med. 328Google Scholar ὦ πατρίς, ὢς σου κάρτα νν μνείαν ἔχω Radermacher, after Nauck and Blaydes, sug- gested: τούτων γὼ γρ πάντ᾽ πιστήμων πέλω better verse, however, could be fabricated with the change of only one letter:

τούτων—ἒχω γρ πάντ᾽*πιστήμων γώ: ‘these things I know, for I am in possession of all the facts.’ The line seems to me quite tolerto able: it is possible, indeed, that, had it been the tradition, the commentators, who are by no means always wrong, would have pronounced it to ‘characterize admirably the fussy selfman importance of the messenger’.—'Εχω= cognian turn habeo is, of course, common enough: cf. e. Eur, . Or. 1119 fGoogle Scholar. ἒσιμεν ἒς οἲκους δθεν ὡς θανούμενοι. | Ορ. ἒχω τοσοτον, τπίλοιπα δ᾽ οὐχ ἕχω, Blaydes on Trach. 318.

^{page 41 note 1} Wecklein transmits to posterity: οὐκ οῖδα, ϕιλότιμον, πάτερ Bothe, οὐκ οῖδά σ᾽ ὃ τι ϕής, ϕίλτατ᾽, οὐκ οῖδ᾽ ὧ πάτερ Hermann, οὐκ οῖδα, ϕίλταθ᾽, ὂ τι λέγεις σύ, πτερ Monk, οὐκ οῖδ᾽ ἃ ϕής, οὐκ οῖδ᾽, ἄϕιλά γ᾽ μοί, πάτερ Hartung, σύ γ᾽ οῖσθ᾽ ὂ τι λέγεις κοὐ σύνοιδ᾽ γώ, πάτερ or ὃ ϕς κλύουσα ϕιλτάτων μοί Vitelli.

^{page 42 note 1} It is enough to say that the proposals range from ὦ θύγατερ, εἰς ταὐτν σὺ σῷ γ᾽ ἢκεις πατρί (Bothe) to εἰς ταὐτόν, ὦ παῖ, συμϕορς ἣκεις πατρι (England).

^{page 42 note 2} At least, when ἣκεις in 665 has been altered irarpi into the clearly intended ἣξεις.

^{page 43 note 1} The whole passage is very ably and fairly discussed by Mr. Platnauer in his edition of the play. That I had been unlucky enough not to see his commentary before writing my notes on the Iphigenia, will be obvious: otherwise their form must have been considerably modified.

^{page 44 note 1} In 766, τε σν is a necessary and certain emendation by Haupt for θεν: in 776, P has the slip ξενοκτόνους, and in 782 ρωτσ᾽ (corrected hyp). L'sunelidedὈρέστα in 7791 mention later.

^{page 44 note 2} ‘Dies deficiat, si velis numerare quibus bonis male evenerit’—and here the misfortunes of the good succeed each other through twenty-one merciless lines of Wecklein, three and a half of which I copy: τάχ᾽ οὖν γῷδ᾽ ὡς εἰς ἂπιστ᾽ ϕίξομαι Klotz, Ιϕ. τάδ᾽εἳσ᾽ρωτνεἰςἂπιστ᾽ ϕίξεται Kayser, τάχ᾽οῧν ρ, τνδ᾽ εἰ τ πίστ ϕίξομαι Stahl, τάχ᾽οῧν ρ, τοῖς εἰς ἂπιστ᾽ ϕίξομαι Kviĉala, Ιϕ. τάχ᾽ οὖν σ᾽ ἒροιτ᾽ ἂν πς ἂπνστος ᾠχόμην Heimsoeth. Out of these five conjectures that of Kayser is at least rational, but one can hardly say that the percentage is maintained.

^{page 45 note 1} The form is without any significance. True, elision is at times not graphically indicated at a change of speakers: see, for instance, the manuscript readings at I.A. 1354, 1359, 1465, Or. 1235, 1606, 1607, 1609, 1611. The reason, how-ever, is simply that, in plays where the phenomenon occurs at all, it occurs everywhere (almost always nakedly, but at times with the apparent hiatus cloaked by a later γ' or δ'). The following examples from the Hercules illustrate, I think, all the types: 227, 228, 256, 478, 511, 706, 726,984,985,953, ion, 1221,1236,1284,1289,1290, 1298, 1343, 1362, 1386, 1387, 1412 (ὂντα οὐκ is emended to ὂντα κοὺκ), 1419. At Rhes. 13 ff., the transtradition is: EK…. τίνες κ νυκτν τς μετέρας | κοίτας πλάθουσ᾽; νέπειν χρή. | χο. ϕύλακες στρατις. Εχ. τί ϕέρη ϕορύβῳ; | χο. θάρσει. Εκ. θαρσ. | μν τις λόχος κ νυκτν; χο. οὐκ ἒστι. Εκ. τί σὺ γρ | ϕυλακας προλιπὼν κινεῖς στρατιν κτ.. Dindorf expunged [ χο. οὐκ ἒστι], and is generally followed. But οὐκ ἒστι is the same thing as οὐκ ἒσθ᾽, and it is easy to write: μν τις λόχος κ νυκτν; οὐκ ἒσθ᾽, | Εκτορ. Εκ. τί σὺ γρ | ϕυλακς προλιπὼν κτ The reason for the omission of the vocative is obvious.

^{page 45 note 2} This is probably the sole reason why the trochaic tetrameters 1203–33 are diversified at 1213 by an irrelevant iambic trimeter: ὡς (ώστ᾽) εκότως σε πσα θαυμάζει πόλις. Omitted, by one accident or other, after 1202, where Markland suggested placing it, it was inserted at the bottom of the page and conscientiously transtradition scribed there, though the trochaics were in full swing. After 1202 it is apt enough, though Bdpoei. unnecessary, and the stichomythia (1159–201) closes, as it opened, with a distich of Thoas.

^{page 46 note 1} In the limbo of his appendix are: ξαίσιον Tyrwhitt, νιανοίων Heath, νιανοίας Boissonade, ναίσιον W. G. Clark, ναυσθλούμενος (adopted by Nauck) M. Schmidt.

^{page 47 note 1} An irrelevant case of the confusion of I and T may perhaps be corrected here: Plut. de tuend. sanit. 130 A ὦσπερ ϕήσας μηδν γράϕειν παραθαλαττίοις περί δόντων. Any word often on the lips of seafaring men will serve for δόντων, but the right one is hardly either όλκάδων (Babbitt) or τριοδόντων (Bernardakis) or ὂψων (Sieveking). The right alteration, I think, is clearly: θονίων*.

^{page 48 note 1} A similar appeal to the gallery is Ion's: ξαιρ χαῖρέ μοι, πάτερ (Ion 561), and his μτερ (1437).

^{page 49 note 1} These passages from the Orestes remind me of another which seems to admit a fairly plausible correction (401 ff.):

Με. ἣρξω δ λύσσης πότε; τίς ήμέρα τότ᾽ ἦν

Ορ. ν ἦ τάλαιναν μητέρ᾽ ξώγκουν τάϕῳ

Με. πότερα κατ᾽ οἳκους ἣ προσεδρεύων πυρᾷ;

Ορ. νυκτς ϕυλάσσων ναίρεσιν.

Με. παρν τις ἂλλος ὅς σν ρθενεν δέμας;

Ορ. Πυλάδης γ᾽, συνδρν αῖμα καί μητρς ϕόνον

Με. κ ϕασμάτων δ τάδε νοσεῖς ποίων ὓπο;

Ορ. ἒδοξ᾽ ἰδεῖν τρεῖς νυκτ προσϕερεῖς κόρας.

In 407, the punctuation: κ ϕασμάτων δέ τάδε νοσεῖς; merely replaces the unin- teUigible by the silly; nor is the least doubt possible that the reading of Laurentianus xxxi. 10, ϕαντασμάτων δ κτ. (omitting κ) is a copy- ist's conjecture. As a conjecture it is certainly preferable to Reiske's τινων or τάλαν for ὕπο, inferior, in my judgement, to κ ϕασμάτων δ τάδ᾽ νόσεις ποίων ὕπαρ

^{page 51 note 1} Data occasione, two or three other places of the passage may be corrected (I quote by the page and line of Haury): 56, 19 πταέτης] Leg. έπταέτις.—58, 7 λλ τν ὥραν τοῖς ε περιπίπτουσιν πεδίδοτο] Leg. παραπίπτουσιν. Cf. 46, 8 ϕαιρούμενοι τοὺς παραπεπτωκότας τ…ίμάτια, 48, τν τινα παραπεπτωκότων γυμνν ἓκτεινον, 59, 2 ἰσχιάζουσα τοὺς παραπεπτωκότας, 73, 25 δόξης τς πατρίου τοὺς παραπίπτοντας ἠνάγκαζον μεταβάλλεσθαι, 132, 21 λυμαίνεσθαι τοῖς παραπίπτουσιν.—59, 9 ἢδε] Leg. ή δέ: cf. 52, simm.—60, 4 ff. οὓτω μέντοι το σχήματος ἒχουσα ναπεπτωκυῖά τε ν τῷ δάϕει ὑπτία ἒχειτο θτες δέ τινες κτ.— 61, 12 ff. οὓτω μν οὖν τετέχθαι τε τδε τ γυναικ κα τεθράϕθαι ξυνέβη κα ς δημοσίους πολλάς διαβοήτῳ γεγενσθαι κα ς πάντας νθρώπονς], For this absurdity, write, probably: ς δήμους πολλοὺς κτ. SO, for instance, at 165, 17, δημοσίν and δήμου are variants (equally admissible); atPlut, . Phoc. 2Google Scholar, Coraës' δήμοις is necessary for δημοσίοις; at Dinarch. i. 37 N's δημον (adopted by Maetzner and Blass) seems to be right as against the vulgate δημοσίον (defended by Thalheim). At 59, 16 τπρς ποδν is perfectly sound: cf. Mnesim. ap. Ath. 421C.

^{page 55 note 1} Italics mine.