¹ McCall, Likewise M. H., Arktouros: Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M. W. Knox (1979), p. 111.Google Scholar

² On p. 60 n. 29 there is an unworthy outburst of pique at Page's reluctance to believe this: ‘Page's remark in the OCT, praef. x: “nec facile refutari potest (sic: poterit Page), siquis Medicei textum primam ex uncialibus translationem repraesentare contendat” shows that he has read neither Turyn's treatment of M nor the introduction in HFJ¹ with sufficient attention.’ Page's annotated copy of HFJ¹(the 1970 edition), now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, shows that, of the five passages adduced by Friis Johansen, he was willing to entertain only two 14 and 271: pp. 71 and 60 of the present edition) as possible indications of a minuscule source. He rejected (with every justification) the evidence of 116, 324, 386 (pp. 61–2). ‘If HFJ right’ (he wrote) ‘surprising evidence should be so scanty and each case so disputable.’

³ Of the ten conjectures by Whittle I regard eight as having a good chance of being right (63, 69, 105, 248, 276, 435, 437, 915), of the twenty by Friis Johansen I should so regard ten (135, 209, 309–11, 443–4, 515, 516, 576, 597, 615, 617–18; some of the others deserve serious consideration), and so also two of the three for which joint authorship is claimed (282–3, 402). Some mistakes in the attribution of conjectures by the earliest critics have been pointed out (a propos the 1970 edition) by Gruys, J. A., The Early Printed Editions (1518–1664) of Aeschylus (1981), pp. 33–35, 255Google Scholar. For the attribution of θέλγοιϲ in 1055 see McCall (cited above, n. 1), pp. 109–14.

⁴ The ‘rule’ that one writes Διονύϲιον τιμᾶι καὶ ὲμέ but τιμᾶι με καὶ Διονύϲιον is simply controverted by passages like E. Held. 281, Med. 1140, Tr. 404–5, IT 1417, Ion 968, where metre shows that the pronoun, though placed first, cannot be enclitic.