^{page 146 note 1} For the arguments for the early dating of the Trachiniae see Pohlenz, , Griechische Tragödie, p. 202, II., p. 57Google Scholar; for the Electra, ibid. II., p. 89—below I try to show that the Electra must be nearer to the O. T. than to the Philoctetes. The monody before the parodos is possible any time after the Hecuba, even if it is necessary to assume that Sophocles could not have used it before Euripides. Siess, Wiener Stud. XXXVI., arrives at the same conclusion but must be discounted as his evidence makes the O.T. the latest play.

^{page 147 note 1} Trach. 77, O.T. 96, El. 32, Phil. 68, O.C. 87.

^{page 147 note 2} Pohlenz, op. cit., p. 436, etc.

^{page 147 note 3} Ai. 719, Ant. 635.

^{page 147 note 4} The Ἀχαιν Σλλογος seems to have had same structure; the first half dealt with the anagnorisis of Telephos, the second with the reconciliation of Achilles. Achilles' coming must have been announced by a herald beforehand, because in the preserved fragment, when he comes, Odysseus is already on the stage to receive him. The Tereus was probably also diptych; it had a prologue like the Trachiniae the first part dealt with the story of Philomela, the second with the revenge, the metamorphosis was perhaps announced by Hermes. There no reason to assume that it must have been produced shortly before the Birds; 1. 281 of the Birds seems to preclude it, for Philocles unlikely to have plagiarised the Tereus soon after its production. The Telephos was thirteen years old when the Acharnians was written.

^{page 147 note 5} The Telepheia.

^{page 147 note 6} Fr. 583 probably belongs to the prologue.

^{page 147 note 7} E.g. the lphigeneia: Achilles and Odysseus were probably contrasted.

^{page 147 note 8} Cf. Post, Harvard Studies, 1912.

^{page 148 note 1} O.T. 649; El. 823, 1231; Phil. 391, 507, 827; O.C., 509, 833, 876.

^{page 148 note 2} 11. 67 and 148; on this whole question see T. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Phil. Untersuch. XXL, and Ackermann, Ueber das πιθανν bei Sophocles.

^{page 148 note 3} I. 144.

^{page 148 note 4} I. 415.

^{page 148 note 5} In the prologues; cf. Nestle, Struktur des Eingangs.

^{page 148 note 6} El. 1177, Phil. 201 f., O.C. 1255.

^{page 148 note 7} Phil. 22 f., 1001, 1254, 1299; O.C. III f., 117–202, 826 f.

^{page 148 note 8} El. 52.

^{page 148 note 1} Cf. Schadewaldt, Monolog u. Selbstgespräch.

^{page 148 note 1} Pohlenz, op. cit., II., p. 47.