^{page 55 note 2} ‘XOPOY in theHeautontimoroumenos and the Plutus’, Hermathena, lxxiv, 1949, pp. 26–38.Google Scholar The quotations are from pp. 30–31.

^{page 55 note 3} The reference is to ‘Study of Act-Divisions in Classical Drama’, Iowa Studies in Class. Phil, ix, 1940.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} ed. Hall, and Geldart, : vol. ii, 1907.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 5} Leipzig, 1881 (Teubner).

^{page 55 note 6} Budé edition, vol. v: Paris, 1930.

^{page 55 note 7} …Codex Ravennas 137, 4. A phototypice editus. Praefatus est Van Leeuwen, J., J. f. (Du Rieu Series, 9): Leiden, 1904.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 8} Part 6 of the larger edition: Halle, 1886.

^{page 55 note 9} Facsimile of the Codex Venetus Marcianus 474. With a preface by J. W. White, and an introduction by T. W. Allen: London, 1902.

^{page 55 note 10} Oxford edition, vol. iv, 1838. Dübner's edition of the scholia (Paris, 1842) is based on Dindorf. Where their numeration differs, I give Dindorf's number in brackets.

^{page 56 note 1} See Th. Hopfner's Obituary Notice, Bursian, 1938, 262. Bd., 1–14, and his preface to the work cited below.

^{page 56 note 2} Sitzungsberichte der Akad. der Wissen-schaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse, 218. Bd., 3. Abh. It is a great pity that the text is not yet available.

^{page 56 note 3} e.g. by Blaydes and Coulon.

^{page 56 note 4} I quote from Dübner, whose indications of source, in common with those of Dindorf, are not always precise. Here, for instance, it is not clear from the two editors that the scholium is not extant in RV. Here and else-where the label (Aldine) indicates the identity, except in trivial details, of Dübner's text with that of the Aldine edition of 1498. For this scholium, and the series to which it belongs, see further Koster, W. J. W., Scholia in Aristophanis Plutum et Nubes …, Leiden, 1927,Google Scholar and von Holzinger's remarks on the work and its subject in Charisteria zum Alois Rzach … dargebracht, Reichenberg, 1930, pp. 58–85,Google Scholar and references there given. Koster retorted in Mnemosyne, Ix, 1932–1933, 113–34.Google Scholar Add von H.'s ‘Vorstudien zur Beurteilung der Erklärertatigkeit des Demetrios Tri-klinios zu den Komödien des Aristophanes’, SAWW, 217. Bd., 4. Abh. 1939. Discussion of the text and ultimate sources of the scholia is beyond the range of this article. It appears that the series which is our main concern is due to Triclinius, who can be shown to have drawn freely for his annotations on the work of Thomas Magister and on old scholia now lost to us. (See the following notes.) In schol. ad 641 I accept (cf. Koster, opp. cit.). where Blaydes tentatively suggested , receives support from the which von Holzinger, Rz. Char., p. 82, quotes from Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana, C222 inf., ad 252–3.

^{page 56 note 5} Cf. scholl. ad 627, 802 (Aldine), which remark on, and excuse, the absence of a choral ode at 626–7 and 822–3 respectively, but tell us nothing about XOPOY. Schol. ad 627 appears in Zuretti's ‘prima serie’ of scholia (Scolii al Pluto ed alle Rane …, Turin, 1890),Google Scholar and on this and other evidence is ascribed to Thomas Magister: see Holzinger, von, Rz. Char., pp. 77 f.,Google Scholar and references there given. The similarity between this scholium and the ‘Triclinian’ series suggests that Triclinius may have drawn on Thomas Magister in compiling them.

^{page 57 note 1} Scholia in Plutum … The note is not in D.-D., but is extant also in Ct2 (Cambridge Univ. Lib., Nn 3. 15) and elsewhere: cf. Holzinger, von, Rz. Char., pp. 82 f.,Google Scholar who remarks: ‘In formeller Hinsicht weist die Ausdrucksweise auf Thomas Magister hin.’ It is tempting to suppose that this, or a substantially similar note, is referred to in the of schol. ad 627; von Holzinger, I.c., suggests another possible reference. However this may be, and however the questions of authorship are resolved, the analogies between the Byzantine scholia referred to in this paper seem to indicate a similarity or identity of view, and that, for our purpose, is sufficient, appears for XOPOY at Plutus 626–7 in Vienna, Hofbibliothek, philos. et philol. gr. 210 and 257 (von Holzinger, Kommentar ad loc). Cf. (Ambros. C222 inf., ad 252–3), referred to in p. 55, n. 4 above.

^{page 57 note 2} These readings of Ct2 (Cant. 2) are correctly reported by Dobree in his Collatio Pluti, appended to Porson's Notae in Aristo-phanem…, Cambridge, 1820,Google Scholar and by Blaydes. Dindorf attributes XOPOY to (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, Conv. Soppr. 140) at 801–2 and 1096–7 (scholia, Oxford edn., pp. 251, 326). I examined the MS. in a microfilm kindly supplied by the authorities of the Library. The XOPOY-notes in it are not part of the original text, but have been added by one of the various hands which wrote in late scholia and glosses, on which see Zacher, K., ‘Die HSS und Klassen der Aristophanesscholien’, p. 548Google Scholar (J. berichte f. Mass. Phil., Supplbd. 16, 1888). The series differs from that of Ct2 in having KOMMATION XOPOY at 252–3 as well as at 770–1, and in lacking XOPOY at 626–7. The Aldine, lacking schol. ad init. (Paris 2827), lacks also the XOPOY of 252–3 to which it refers. For reports of XOPOY in other MSS., see Blaydes's app. crit., Koster, Scholia in Plutum …, and von Holzinger, Komm. on 626–27, Rz. Char., pp. 82 ff. I remark here that E (Modena, Bibl. Estense, a. U.5.10, olim G. 127, olim III D. 8) agrees with R–R ² in having KOMMATION XOPOY at 770–1 and XOPOY at 801–2. Acknowledgement is again due to the authorities of the Library for a microfilm.

^{page 57 note 3} Cf. Zacher, , ‘HSS und Klassen’, p. 519.Google Scholar J. W. White, in his preface to the facsimile, remarks: ‘…the Venetus was so slavishly copied as to reproduce all essential features of its original.’

^{page 58 note 1} At 627 and 802, as at Clouds 889, XOPOY appears at the left of the line it is intended to precede, before the nota personae. At 322, however, the nota personae for Chremylus stands alone, and the XOPOY is misplaced against the line above. KOMMATION XOPOY at 769 is another simple misplacing (not a variant, for 770 has the nota personae for Carion). I infer that the words originally stood at the right of 770, the line they were intended to follow, and have been wrongly inserted. pap. 1707 (Milne, 84), a (?) tragic fragment with a possible scene-division. Pubbl. della Soc. Italiana, papiri lat. e gr. vii (1925), No. 847 is a comic fragment with a paragraphos followed by a space in the text which possibly contained an illustration; but it is not clear what kind of division in the text was marked

^{page 58 note 2} It is most unlikely that R's X represents XOPO∑ in the tradition, in face of the evidence for XOPOY from the old scholia (see below, n. 5) and V.

^{page 58 note 3} For the eight instances in the Menander papyri, see Korte, A., Menander ³, Leipzig, 1938.Google Scholar For others, seePage, D. L., Greek Literary Papyri, i, London, 1942,Google Scholar Nos. 48, 65, and 66. (Note that No. 48, frg. 2 has according to the edit, princeps, and not Zuntz, G., Mn. (ser. 3), v, 1937, P. 53,Google Scholar concurs in Add to these Vienna, Nationalbibliodiek, pap. 29811 (Oellacher, H., Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Nat.-Bibl. in Wien, N.F. iii, 1939, pp. 31 ff.),Google Scholar London, B.M., pap. 2294 (Milne, H. J. M., Cat. of the Lit. Papyri in the B.M., London, 1927, No. 92),Google Scholar and possibly Hibeh Papyri, i (1906),Google Scholar No. 12. B.M. 2294 has Hibeh I. 12 has between lines, followed by ‘a broad blank space’. The editors suggest that is ‘perhaps part of a stage direction’; it may be rather part of (cf. the tragic papyrus B.M. 688+1822 (Milne, 80) quoted in p. 59, n. 4 below). Schröder, O., Novae comoediae fragmenta …, Bonn, 1915,Google Scholar No. 2, restores XOPOY to B.M. pap. 1823 (Milne, 91). I mention here some other papyri of tangential interest: Oxyrhynchus Papyri, xvii (1927),Google Scholar No. 2086, scholia to a comedy(?), with ? = Act IV) marked (see Korte, , Archiv für Papyrusforschung, x, 1931–1932, p. 227);Google Scholar Antino-Opolis Papyri I (1950), No. 15, a fragment with a list of characters, probably as an act-heading; B.M. pap. 186 ^v (Milne, 77), a tragic fragment with XOPOY; and B.M. pap. 1707 (Milne, 84), a (?) tragic fragment with a possible scene-division. Pubbl. delta Soc. Italiana, papiri lat. e gr. vii (1925),Google Scholar No. 847 is a comic fragment with a paragraphos followed by a space in the text which possibly contained an illustration; but it is not clear what kind of division in the text was marked.

^{page 58 note 4} It is a possible, though not a necessary, supposition that XOPOY was everywhere written in the margin in a common ancestor of our MSS. The practice of the surviving MSS. shows interesting variations. For in stance, R has XOPOY interlinear at Eccl. 729–30 and 876–7; KOMMATION XOPOY interlinear we have observed at Plut. 770–1. Possibly at 801–2 R ² rescued the XOPOY from the margin of the original. At 1095 has as nota personae; it could by a remote possibility be thought to have absorbed a marginal XOPOY. R near 958 has in the scholia (ad 953 (954 Di)), where it belongs genuinely, but might be thought to have done the same. V's other readings have been discussed. Ct2 has XOPOY and KOMMATION XOPOY consistently set between lines; vonHolzinger, Komm. on 626–7, reports MSS. which have XOPOY there (i) interlinear (ii) at the right of 626 (iii) at the left of 627. The Aldine has XOPOY interlinear at 958–9 and 1096–7; it stands at the right of 626 and of 801, and KOMMATION XOPOY at the right of 770.

^{page 58 note 5} Cf. from schol. ad loc. (V) (886 Di): ascription to Heliodorus, see White, J. W., The Verse of Greek Comedy, London, 1912, § 833,Google Scholar and references there given. The text of the schol. is given by W. on p. 409. He attributes to V, and adopts from Thiemann. Cf. also, from the same passage in V, the note For the corrupt D.-D. adopt (Aid.). Schol. ad 814 (812 Di) attests the XOPOY in words similar to those of the Plutus scholia considered above.

^{page 59 note 1} D.-D., prol. xi: … For the punctuation given above, see Maidment, K. J., ‘The Later Comic Chorus', p. 12, n. 5 (CQ. xxix, 1935),Google Scholar with whom I agree that thus punctuated the text seems satisfactory. V omits which can be supplied, e.g. from E Aid. [sic] V, not as D.-D. report, E Ald.

^{page 59 note 2} Professor T. B. L. Webster was kind enough to examine A (Paris, B.N., anc. fonds grec 2712) and confirm the editors' reports. For U (Vatican, Bibl. Apost. Vat. Urb. gr. 141), the authority is van Velsen's collation, for M (Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana, L 39 sup.), Coulon's. For see p. 57, n. 2.

^{page 59 note 3} Cf. Ritter, F., De Aristophanis Pluto, Bonn, 1827, P. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 4} Cf. ibid., p. 18: ‘certissima uidetur et aliorum et Beckii interpretatio, uidelicet uerbis significari aliud carminum genus, atque ab illo ludicro quod antecedit diuersum.’ R. believed (improbably) that a choral song had been lost in the transmission, but the interpretation which he quotes is widely held as a justification for XOPOY at 321–2, even without the evidence of V. Cf. also von Holzinger, Komm., ad loc, and on 318, to whom the interpretation of is due. I rely on his arguments, but differ from his interpretation of XOPOY. , he remarks, ‘gehört somit alsselbstverständliche Ergänzung’, and would hold that at the places marked by XOPOY the chorus danced, but did not sing. KOMMATION XOPOY at 770–1 suggests a song, but there von H. says: ist die Erklärung eines Gram-matikers, der sich unter die Anzeige eines Chorgesanges vorstellte. Ebenso geht (sic van Velsen) auf die Vor-stellung zurück, daη hier der Chor nur einen Tanz aufführt… Alte Überlieferung war keines von beiden, sondern nur XOPOY wie in der ’ The case for giving XOPOY the meaning ‘song and dance by the chorus’ is well stated by K. J. Maidment, op. cit., who quotes XOPOY M[EAO∑ from the tragic fragment B.M. pap. 688+1822. This weakens one of von H.'s arguments. On the others: it is odd behaviour for a Gramma-tiker to leave his readers in doubt at 321–2 and 626–7, and enlighten them at 770–1; and when we are told that a song at 321 ‘nicht nur überflussig wäre, sondern geradezu storend wirken dürfte’, we may legitimately wonder whether Aristophanes would have agreed.

^{page 60 note 1} It is of course possible that XOPOY was transferred from 321–2 to 252–3, but the argument is not seriously affected.

^{page 60 note 2} At 1170 Blaydes reports ‘Post h.v. adscriptum in Cant. 4’ (Cambridge, U.L., Nn 3. 16). The report is false, and derives presumably from Dobree's Collatio Pluti, where we read ‘1171 om. 1. 2. 3.’.