^{page 3 note 1} I am indebted to Mr. M. N. Tod for these facts.

^{page 3 note 1} Where lexica exist I have used them; where not, I have searched the text. Neither the human eye nor human attention is infallible. I can only hope that omissions, if any, are few.

^{page 3 note 2} .

^{page 3 note 3} I cite from the texts respectively of Murray and Pearson. For Eur. fragg. I use Nauck.

^{page 4 note 1} Where would be possible only by prodelision or crasis I regard as metrically guaranteed.

^{page 4 note 2} Cf. Hense on Stob. iv, p. 728,1. It isnot clear whether Bergk meant a late Sophoclean play or a post-Sophoclean play. In any case Wilamowitz definitely regards itas post-Sophoclean (Hermes, lxiv. 465).

^{page 4 note 1} I purposely omit Eur. fr. 1109. 2 ()as almost certainly spurious (cf. hypoth. to Rhesus, p. 2, 1. II (Murray) ); also/r. 953. 1 (‘not Euripidean’: Wilamowitz in Hermes, xv. 491); also fr. adesp. 111. 2 ()—a fragment attributed to Eur. by Meineke (Jahrb.f. Philol. lxxxvii. 381), without, as it seems to me, any justification.

^{page 5 note 1} I say 8, not 7, as I have added Neophron, fr. 2. 7 ().

^{page 5 note 2} I cite from the Oxford text of Aristophanes, and from Kock, vol. i.