^{page 1 note 1} Except Margoliouth's ó μέλλων δ έπεì γένητόι κλέος, προχαιρέτω | ίσον δ⋯ τòν προστένειν, which he renders qui gauisurus est allato nuntio de excidio Troiae is iam nunc gaudeat ; alium autem par est iam nunc lugere, ueniet autem luce clarior. This also produces no reasonable sense from the whole passage.

^{page 2 note 1} I takr it to be certain that 261, s embody the doctrine of instruction by suffering (cf. 187 with Keadlam's note) and discount conjectures which attach τò μέλλον to this sentence.

^{page 2 note 2} If τò μέλλον is taken with γένοιτο alone, there is no subject for προθαιρέτω.

^{page 3 note 1} The emphasis is due not to the metrical position of the words τ⋯ν ν⋯ν (Headlam, On Editing Ae., pp. 5 sqq.) but to the order. According to Kühner-Gerth, G.G., p. 613, the substantive in such phrases as άν⋯ρ ⋯ άγαθός is defined only by the following phrase, and both ⋯μ⋯ρ ⋯ ⋯γαθòς and ⋯ ⋯μ⋯ρ ⋯ ⋯γαθòς involve a contrast. Oí ν⋯ν and οι ν⋯ν ἄνθρωποι are sometimes babrly distinguishable in sense from ἄνθρωποτ, but to defined τ⋯ν ν⋯ν here we require examples of άνθρωποι οἱ ν⋯ν so used ; and I do not know of any.

^{page 4 note 1} Δ⋯δας γ⋯νεθλον in 905 is no doubt, as Verrall says, a sinister address, but it is not necessarily so meant by Agamenon, and the whole scence is packed with dramatic irony. The form of words is not in itself remarkable ; cf. 775.

^{page 4 note 2} Theognis, 543, 945 ; Soph. fr. 421. In Eur.Ion 1514 the metaphor seems to be different.

^{page 4 note 3} I have not seen Thiersch's note. but I suppose he wished to translate ‘ cruel even to excess.’ If the γε is to be classified, it may be called apodotic. Examples of this usage are given by Neil in his edition of the Knights, pp. 199 sq.

^{page 5 note 1} Cf. also Ch. 909 sq.

^{page 5 note 2} It can just be got in by writing, with Heusde, the unpleasant line Δíκᾳ δ’ ⋯π ἂλλο πρ⋯γμ ἃορ θέγει βλάβης.

^{page 6 note 1} Cf., e.g., Eum. 169=174.

^{page 6 note 2} The lexicons quote Herodian vii. 5, ἒχων πρόκωπον τέν δεξιάν, ‘hand on hilt,’ which is an extension of the ordinary έχων πρόκωπον τò ξíøος (Cf. Suidas s.v.: cf. Eur. Or. 1477). It is still far from the supposed Aeschylean use.

^{page 6 note 3} Eum. 595 ξιøονλκῷ χειρí: cf. Eur. Phoen. 363 ξιøήρη χεîρ έχων.