^{page 46 note 1} Euripidis Fabulae, ed. Murray, G., torn, i, 1902… 1940Google Scholar; vide notas ad argum. etw. 629,822, 1052 et sub fin.

^{page 46 note 2} Hermes, xvii, 1882, 337; reprinted in Kleine Sckriften, i, 1935, 82. CfGoogle Scholar. ap., G. Hermann, Euripidis Tragoediae, rec. Matthiae, A., viii, 1824, 257,Google Scholar. and ib. 215; Euripidis Trag. ed. Kirchhoff, A., ii, 1855, 496Google Scholar, note on v. 627.

^{page 46 note 3} Wilamowitz, , Herdkles, i ¹, 1883, 218Google Scholar, and again in Der Glaube der Hettenen, i, 1931, 299Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 4} e.g. Macurdy, G. H., Class. Quart., i, 1907, 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmidt, Johanna, ‘Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides’, R.V.V., xvii. 2, 1921Google Scholar; Meridier, L., Euripide, i, 1925, 186Google Scholar; Schmutzer, P., Eos, xxxiii, 1930, 358Google Scholar; Koerner, S., Studio Leopolit., iv, 1932, 38Google Scholar; Smereka, J., Eos, 1932, 251Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 5} Pohlenz, Max, Die griechische Tragoedie, 1930, i. 375Google Scholar; ii. 104.

^{page 46 note 6} Some assenting voices: Pfister, F., Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, i, 1909, 114Google Scholar; Norwood, G., Greek Tragedy, 1920, 204Google Scholar; Schadewaldt, W., Monolog und Selbstgespräch, 1926, 15Google Scholar; Geffcken, J., Griechische Literaturgeschichte, i, 1926, 188Google Scholar; Zielinski, T., Iresione, i, 1931, 350, n. 1 (Eos suppl. 2Google Scholar; reprinted from Philologus, lv, 1896)Google Scholar; McLean, John H., Amer. Journ. Phil., lv, 1934, 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Page, D. L., Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy, 1934, 35Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 7} Greek Tragedy, 1939, 187, n. 3.

^{page 46 note 8} This argument has been thoroughly and fruitfully discussed by Pohlenz, I.e.

^{page 46 note 9} Actually two quotations in Stobaeus from the Heradidae are ascribed to the κρ⋯σσαι: vv. 745–7 (Stob. iv. 31 b. 40) and vv. 865 f. (ib. iv. 41. 26 a).

^{page 47 note 1} Judging from Schneidewin's notes in his edition, Coniectanea Critica, 1839, 37 (distinxi versibus) and 96 (versus quern … separavimus).

^{page 47 note 2} τĐς π⋯σαντας MS.: τ⋯ν π⋯σαντα Meineke (Stobaeus, iv, 1857, p. xlvi; τὼ π⋯σαντε wrongly Schneidewin). The metrical howler may have been introduced by the anthologist in order to make the quotation fit this section.

^{page 47 note 3} I.c. 56, 7.

^{page 47 ntoe 4} ⋯ S; ⋯ρακλειδŵν A.

^{page 47 note 5} The scribe of the archetye appears to have skipped the quotation from Held, and the following heading. (The suggestion is P. Maas's.)

^{page 47 note 6} The rejection of a son failing to honour his father (fr. 852, vv. 3–5), if anything, suits Held. even less.

^{page 47 note 7} ‘Orion’ inverts the order: he has more to say about the relation between father and children, while Stobaeus concludes his Euripidean section with the quotation of fr. 358 (Erechtheus).

^{page 47 note 8} 'Ev ταὐτῷ praef. Stob.

^{page 47 note 9} iii. 1. 80 and 7. 8 Hense.

^{page 48 note 1} See the tesiimonia in the editions of Kirchhoff and Méridier.

^{page 48 note 2} This statement derives no support whatever from schol. Aristophanis Eq. 1151, where the reference to Macaria's death, bracketed by Duebner, is nequissima nequam interpolationis interpolatio (Wilamowitz, , Ind. schol. Gryph., 1882, p. viGoogle Scholar = Kleine Sckriften, i, 1935, 66)Google Scholar. No manuscript contains it.

^{page 48 note 3} A similar though less serious mistake in the first hypothesis of the Oed. Col. was cited by Cl. Moore, H. (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil., xii, 1901, 292)Google Scholar in evidence of its composite character.

^{page 48 note 4} παρθ⋯νων L.

^{page 49 note 1} On the basis of the index personarum this could be done at any time. The anonymous ‘daughter of Heracles’ had been dubbed Macaria at least as early as in the days of Duris of Samos.

^{page 49 note 2} The addition would be comparable with that at the end of the hypothesis of Rhes. which has been demonstrated by the papyrus published by Gallavotti, C. in Riv. di Filol. lxi, 1933, 177Google Scholar.

^{page 49 ntoe 3} See (e.g.) Zenobius, I.e. (τ⋯ν τ⋯πν τιμŵντες) and schol. Plat, . Hipp. 1, 293Google Scholar a (κατ⋯ τιμ⋯ν). The paroemiographical evidence has been conveniently presented by Wilamowitz, (Ind. schol. Gryph. 1882, p. ivGoogle Scholar = Kleine Schriften, i, 1935, 63)Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 1} v. 2 is ungrammatical, A Greek may say σ⋯ς εἰμι, but not σ⋯ π⋯πκα. τῖς π⋯λας then stands in need of a governing noun or adjective. The lacuna is indicated also by the context. The point of Iolaus' sentence is that the righteous man, though useful and agreeable to others, is himself lost; in contradistinction to the κακ⋯ς, whose actions are determined by the regard forκ⋯ρδς (cf. Hyps. fr. 758 and Antiope frr. 187 and 194). Like Bellerophontes (whose prologue in the Stheneboea affords the one extant analogy to that of the Heradidae) Iolaus at once proceeds to reveal the personal experiences which occasioned his initial pronouncement. The very point of his bipartite Sδ⋯γμα, corresponding with v. 11, has dropped out after v. 2. Like so many corruptions in the text of the Attic drama the loss must be ascribed to pre-AIexandrian times, for Stobaeus (iii. 10.1) quotes the mutilated text.

^{page 50 note 2} The insertion of an epexegetical infinitive after μ⋯λλετε–a typical kind of interpolation– makes nonsense of the following verse. Eurystheus has ‘shown a perfectly safe was’, not for killing himself but for securing π⋯λει σωτηρ⋯αν κτλ. (V. 1045 f.). The way to this goal Alcmena suggests in v. 1049: Eurystheus is the enemy, and will be useful through his death. Her command in v. 1050 is the logical outcome of these premises, The progress of the argument is spoiled by v. 1047. Its spuriousness is underlined by κτε⋯νεειν v. 1047 anticipating κατθανών v. 1049 and κταν⋯ντας v. 1051.

^{page 50 note 3} Cf. Or. 1652; fr. 310; S. Oed. Col. 504, 812.

^{page 50 note 4} Phoen. 1018.

^{page 50 note 5} Cf. Rhes. 131; S. Phil. 1448.

^{page 50 note 6} v. 981 f.

^{page 50 note 7} v. 1054 f.

^{page 50 note 8} v. 1045 f.

^{page 50 note 9} vv. 961–74; the third verse of the sticho mythia has dropped out.

^{page 50 note 10} Cf. especially v. 971 f. with 1020 f. and with 981 f.

^{page 51 note 1} w. 799 ff.

^{page 51 note 2} Cf. Rassow, Joh., De Euripidis nuntiorum nanationibus, 1883, 6Google Scholar. Rassow strove to save Wilamowitz's thesis by the suggestion that Demophon reported Macaria's death.

^{page 51 note 3} Hec. 547 ff., cf. Held. 547 ff.

^{page 51 note 4} Hec. 568 ff., cf. Held. 565 ff.

^{page 51 note 5} Hec. 573 ff., cf. Held. 588 ff. and 599.

^{page 52 note 1} Soph. O.R. 1071.

^{page 52 note 2} Cf. schol. Hipp. 803; schol S.O.T. 447.