^{page 4 note 1} So, for example, Smyth, H. Weir (Loeb Classical Library), and A. Sidgwick's school edition (Oxford, 1903).Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} The spelling seems to underlie the variants and was restored here and in Supp. 298 by Schultze (Kleine Schriften, 321 ff). Professor Dover reminds me that the morphological argument is not strong, since these are perhaps the only extant examples of gen./ dat. dual of a noun in and analogy may have counted for more. On balance I think that the orthographic variants here support Schultze, and there is euphonic advantage in the avoidance of homoeoteleuton.

^{page 4 note 3} In Denniston, p. 340, ScT 809 is listed with other (few) examples of but it is clearly different in that it neither follows a negative nor makes a negative statement, in conjunction with the line being equivalent, approximately at least, to The meaning is both assentient and progressive (thus slightly corrective), and though not exactly paralleled is in line with the general usage of For the rhythm cf. 668

^{page 4 note 4} Page, D. L., Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1934), pp. 31 f.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} Cf. Pers. 396, 397, 403, 408; 447, 448, 453, 463, 467. I refrain from multiplying instances in Aeschylus of similar groups of resolved feet.

^{page 6 note 1} as the plural of is unknown in Attic poetry. Such a form is not to be ruled out in later antiquity, but is here probably to be attributed to Triclinius. M¹ has which in this line may well be the only early variant ‘joint–born–sons of the king’, i.e. cf. 807). If 804–5 ever cohered in antiquity, then will probably have been regarded as an unfinished sentence–opening (aposiopesis), followed by a fresh start: ‘(unnamed) men are dead’. This, though odd, at least avoids too explicit a statement of the news before 806–8. For this, (Porson) may be preferable, but little is gained by introducing such a correction into the text. The later Byzantines evidently took the sense to be ‘reges, viri consanguinei’.

^{page 6 note 2} If 805 is regarded as spurious, (M¹) acquires significance; it could be that the line was originally inter– polated in this unmetrical form, and only later corrected to Much depends on our hypothetical dating of the corruption as a whole, for which see below.

^{page 6 note 3} The first question (‘Who?’) is more, perhaps, than a mere exclamation of shock. True, ‘the joint–born kings’ is hardly ambiguous, but the Chorus-leader's first reaction may well be to demand names, instinctively rejecting the obvious meaning. Her second question is more logical, and serves to apologize for the slow–wittedness of the first query, as well as expressing her anxiety about what is to come. Perhaps we should punctuate

^{page 7 note 1} So Wecklein, dismissed by Murray: ‘sed ru sic quidem bene se habet ’. Given the stichomythia it is hard to visualize a better antecedent (p. 4 above, and n. 3).

^{page 7 note 2} Here may be mentioned the variant intelligible at any period and probably unconnected with the main disorder; also (all except M¹): the alteration (clearly for the worse, unless we are also prepared to write ) is sur prising, but undoubtedly subsequent to the intrusion of 805 and reversal of 809–10; after ‘Dead are … Oedipus’ offspring … and indisputably reduced to the dust’, ‘Do they lie there?’ rightly seemed feeble, and ‘Did they even come thither ?’ at least made a point, if an ungrammatical one.

^{page 7 note 3} (codd.) was rightly sus– pected by Murray. is certainly what one expects and could have resulted, e.g., from erroneous rectification of ΔON-OMΩC. With the Chorus-leader is saying ‘Forget my irrelevant remark and tell me what is essential’ (Denniston, p. 461). There is little logic in this here, for refers to the same topic as We might justify papia by saying that is logically equivalent to (the whole point being the Chorus' fear), but the equation is a strain, and we still do not require both and while is almost necessary with .

^{page 7 note 4} (codd.) is less obvious than (Headlam, Murray), but prob– ably right, associating Oedipus also, through his curse, with the ill fate.

^{page 7 note 5} A lesser change than (Hartung), and (Middle) is other– wise Epic. Perhaps was misread as unless y' was simply omitted (cf. Hp. 275).

^{page 8 note 1} e.g. E. Hp. 405–6 and 662–3 (see infra 20ff, 28ff).Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} A similar problem is presented by Hp. 105 ff., where 105 seems to have been brought forward from a position before 114, with reversal (? prior or consequent) of 106–7.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} The problem was usefully studied by Page, D. L. (op. cit.), but few will be able to agree with all his decisions in detail. In general I think that editors are too ready to postulate comparatively motiveless composition by actors (surely all the suggestions are that their tolerance of apparent anomalies was greater, not less, than that of the great dramatists?), and often premature in deducing spurious composition rather than transmissional error from linguistic faults.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} The present dialogue has a lively character, almost in the manner of Euripides (cf., esp., Hp. 310–13)Google Scholar; some have associated this passage with the quasi-Sophoclean conclusion of the play (Wilamowitz, , Aischylos Interptetationen, following Scholl, Westphal, Wecklein, Paley, etc.)Google Scholar. But the authenticity of the finale has been vindicated by Lloyd– Jones (CQ N.S. ix [1959], 80 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 5} Barrett, , Hippolytos, pp. 45 ff. If ScT was creatively revised in antiquity, such a process would seem least unlikely to have occurred very early, when the plays of Aeschylus were in posthumous competition with those of Sophocles and Euripides (perhaps even by Aeschylus himself at the end of his life). No doubt there were plenty of litterati in the later fourth and third centuries fully capable of sustained iambic composition in the grand manner; but it is less clear that such people will have been in a position to revise an established masterpiece in such a way as to affect its subsequent tradition. This a priori argument may be tenuous, but I think it sufficient to set against some of the assumptions too lightly made by many editors of dramatic texts.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} A fairly clear case of early interpolation caused by misunderstanding of an interruption is to be found in Hp. 1045 ff. (delete 1047–50).Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 2} Such a telescoped variant could alternatively have resulted from a helpful marginale explaining the construction of 804 …821.

^{page 9 note 3} One consideration which might help to date the confusion is that those variants which seem connected with it are found in all MSS. except only the first hand in M; whereas variants unconnected with the disorder are quite differently distributed. But it is difficult to deduce more from this than the dogged honesty of M¹ when faced with nonsense in his archetype. We cannot know whether wrong corrections by M²/m are new conjectures or based on marginalia in the archetype.