^{page 54 note 1} This is quite certain since at fr. 8, 5 it is taken up by τριταῖο[ν.

^{page 54 note 2} Explained at fr. 8,6 by πρό[ς] κήρυ[κος].

^{page 54 note 3} Other endings seem equally possible.

^{page 54 note 4} Suppl. Lobel.

^{page 54 note 5} κύριον suppl. Maas, see below.

^{page 54 note 6} Lobeck, repeatedly (Phrynichus, p. 649Google Scholar; Pathol. Graec. serm. elem. i, p. 311) made a plea for θεοσφθρία, but Hermann, G. (on E. Iph. T. 192)Google Scholarjustly called that ‘vocabulum omni analogiae repugnans’.

^{page 54 note 7} Cf. Wilamowitz, , Sitzgsb. Berl. Akad., 1911, p. 528 = Griech. Verskunst, p. 472Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 8} The passage of Archippus, τίς πανουργία τεκοί θεοισεφρία when compared with Demosth. 19, 95 ὢν, οῖμαι, πανοργος καί ἒφθρός, shows the stereotyped character and also the long life of such formulae of abuse.

^{page 55 note 1} Professor P. Maas accepts it. H e reconstructs the first four lines like this:

]ὦ σάπνν’ δή ṗῖνα θεο[ισεφθρήν ἒφ]εις γαστρός οὐ κατακρạ[τέεις. κύριο]ν ὂνομα ὂ Σάννος ᾧ λοιδορ[εῖται. ἂλλοιδέ] πεποιοθαί φασιν παρά τή[ν σαννάς

At 1. 6 f. the supplements given by Mr. Lobel are absolutely certain. For the exact spaces and alldetails I must ask the reader to compare the photograph (plate XII). In no case is there room for another ∪—∪ before και γαστρός κτλ. I take the opportunity to mention three other felicitous suggestions of Maas. Fr. 1, 1, 12 τοὖς[μ]οι παράσχες, probably the beginning of a trimeter. For the singular τό οὖς in such a phrase, cf. e.g. Aeschylus, fr. 126 N². ἂκουε δ’ ν’ οὖς ἓχων At fr. 1, 2, 8 Maas reads [νενε]κρσθαι. ἲδε σου, φησίν, τούς βραχίονας……ὂτι κτλ. This is clearly right, since thus we need not sacrifice the ι after κρωσθαι and also we reach a satisfactory, construction. At fr. 6, 6 Maas has seen that έντι στᾱτίυ contains the dative στάῖς, cf. Phot. 535, 2 στάς ἂνευ τοῡ ῑ ’ Αττικόςλέγει, δ Ἲων σταίς. Cf. Hesych. στατίνη ή κστέατος πεποιημένη. The υ after στᾱτί is obviously the beginning of another word.—On other points, too, I have greatly profited from the advice and criticism of my old friend.

^{page 55 note 2} For the earlier stages of the discussion Gerhard in Pauly-Wissowa, , Realenc. viii. p. 1896 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 55 note 3} Incidentally, here the protest against changing ἒχει into ἒοχει was already made by Welcker (p. 77 of his edition.).

^{page 56 note 1} For the same problem in Callimachus see Maas, , Gnomon, x, 1934, p. 438Google Scholar, and PRIMI, i, 1937, p. 166 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 56 note 2} Cf. Theander, . Philol. xcii, 1937, p. 468Google Scholar.