^{page 196 note 1} There are, however, numerous emendations, none credible, of δα φνον.

^{page 196 note 2} Headlam has assembled many in his note on Aesch. Agam. 1234, but has not fully recognised their principle; if he had he would neither have included our passage nor presented his collection as a defence of Ἅιδου μητρα.

^{page 197 note 1} Hec. 503; Tro. 447, 747; I.T. 359; Hel. 239 (with Φρυγν not far before, 229); I.A. 337, 352, 359, 729, 825, 1200, 1310, 1335, 1414, 1469.

^{page 197 note 2} At a meeting of the Cambridge Philological Society on November 26, 1931.

^{page 197 note 3} Camb. Univ. Reporter, 1931–2, p. 435. The existing connexion of 1022–3 with 1027 is certainly both strong and good; but it is not invalidated by the transposition, only protracted.

^{page 198 note 1} E.g. the fate of Astyanax was noteworthy; Trojan children would normally be enslaved.

^{page 198 note 2} ἄλοχοι never = mulieres, despite one scholium and Musgrave (whose two examples themselves refute him).

^{page 198 note 3} For Schroeder too ignores it, his Eur. Cantica, p. 37, sanctioning the hiatus.

^{page 198 note 4} Of which my stock illustration is from this play—line 248.

^{page 198 note 5} δυστ. τοκ. as δειλοὺς τοκ. in Il. XXIII. 223.