^{page 42 note 1} I have given here the virgin text of M.

^{page 42 note 2} The Persae of Aeschylus (1960), pp. 166–8, 307–9.

^{page 42 note 3} CR xvi (1902), 57;Google Scholar cf. ibid, xviii (1904), 241.

^{page 42 note 5} JHS xlviii (1928), 142.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 6} He extends the same explanation to ảυαβάσω in Eur. Hel. 1108 (regarded by some as a subjunctive of self-exhortation).

^{page 42 note 7} Phil. Mus. i (1832), 233Google Scholar. Dindorf's proposal to alter further to διαμβοάσω need not be discussed. See Murray in app. crit. adloc. and ad v. 645.

^{page 43 note 1} Hermann for M's . The alternativ restoration proposed by Coxon, A.H., CQ N.s. viii (1958), 49, carries much less conviction.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} M, corr. Robortello comparing Σ . See further Wilamowitz app. crit.

^{page 44 note 2} Against bracketing off this verse as a stage-direction (Murray) see the good witz in app. crit. arguments of Benedetto in his commentary.

^{page 45 note 1} This comparison had already been made by Wackernagel, J., Vorlesungen über Syntax, ii (1928), 77Google Scholar, who explained the syntax in accordance with his theory that the enclitics μοι, σοι, and οί are partially genitival. In view of expressions of the variety, this theory is not in itself implausible. But from Il. 16. 616 and Od. 4. 767, cited below, it is clear that their function in relation to verbs of hearing isthat of genuine datives.

^{page 45 note 2} See Monro, D.B., Homeric Grammar (1882), 98Google Scholar, 5 143. 3; Küihner-Gerth, , Griechische Grammatik, ii. 1 (1897 ³), 359Google Scholar n. 7, 419.

^{page 45 note 3} Cf. also Il. 5. 115, 10. 278, Od. 6. 239, 324, 15. 172, Theogn. 4. In these instances the MSS. are divided between κλ. μοι and κλ. μου/μευ (the version in which the formula occurs in Il. I. 37, 451, Cho. 139, al.), the former being, in all cases except the second last, the better-attested reading. Similarly H. Epigr. 12 begins κλ.μοι in Vit. Hdt. 415 Allen, κλ. μευ in Ath. 592 a.

^{page 45 note 4} Cf. Munro, op. cit. 165, S 243. 4.

^{page 45 note 5} Cf. Leaf in note on Il. 14. 25.

^{page 46 note 1} This etymology has not been contested.

^{page 46 note 2} Pearson's ‘varied notes’ is less good Pindar, it is true, speaks of himself as mingling the øóμιγγα ποand the (0. 3. 8), but as the context shows, he is thinking less of these instruments’ contrasting capacities than of their different roles in the orchestration of his ode. The øóρμιγξ(i.e. κιάρα), we may suppose, would have provided something in the nature of the described by Plato in Lg. 812 d (though involving naturally less elaboration than the contemporary settings which he mainly has in mind), while the underlined the word-rhythm. Similarly O. 4. 2 ποικιλοø ‘a song embroidered with lyre-music’.

^{page 47 note 1} has been much suspected and emended, the main objections to it, as they are given by Owen, being that (a) two genitives depending on are awkward, and (b) Pan cannot simultaneously pipe and sing. But neither objection is valid. In regard to (b), we may note that words which properly signify human utterance are often used in poetry of musical instruments; so βοΣ inIl. 18. 495, Pind. O. 3. 8, and other passages cited by LSJ s.v.; ảλαλγóζ in AP 6. 51. 5, in Telest. fr. 810ò6. 5 P. and in Pae. Delph. 12. So means here ‘loud sound’ and ‘tunes’. That being so, συρίγγωυ will depend not on but on , and will have an adjectival force, the two words expressing a single compound notion: ‘syrinx-tunes’.

^{page 47 note 2} Although LSJ recognize this epithet only as a colour-word, I think it hardly doubtful that it refers in these two passages ‘to song. (Cf. Rose in his translation.) (a) It is a variation on ποικιλόδειρος (sc. ảηδεώυ) in Hes. Op. 203; and whatever the Hesiodic epithet was in fact intended to signify (see Sinclair in note ad loc), it was taken by later antiquity as = ποικιλόøωυος (SO the (b) Observe the contexts, which show that in both instances the poet was thinking of the bird especially as a singer, The same interpretation should in all probability be extended to Dion. 12. 76 αιολόδειρος…χελιδώυ. For the general similarity of the epithets of the nightingale and the swallow see D’Arcy W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds (1936 ²), 17, 315.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} See further the use of αίολο in Telest. fr. 810/6. 5 P, Pae. Delph. 12, Limen. 14, Nonn. Dion. 8. 233, It may also be used of song with reference primarily to its content: Theoc. 16. 44αίόλα øωυέωυ(‘his varied lays’, Gow), Lyc. Al. 671–2 Siren, and so here perhaps shading over into the sense of ‘shifty’, ‘devious’).

^{page 47 note 4} Cf. Suppl. 69 with Tucker's note.

^{page 48 note 1} Reprehensibly they do not state what they take to be the earliest example of this sense. Archil, fr. 90 D? (But here it scarcely suits.) Or the Pindaric passages? How the uses in the Persae are to be taken is also left unclear. Note that δυσαιαυής in render ‘most melancholy’, a sese not recognized s.v. αιααυής.

^{page 48 note 2} While Boisacq, accepting the above-mentioned etymology of (a) as genuine, postulates two homonyms unconnected with each other, Frisk and Chantraine suppose that there was only one word which was later split into two through being falsely connected with αίεί. For this view of the adj. in general see also Kamberbeek in his note on Aj. 672.

^{page 48 note 3} Vermischte Beitrxäge zur griechischen Sprachkunde (Basle, 1897), 7.Google Scholar For some other sug gestions see Boisacq s.v.

^{page 48 note 4} A heteroclite form αίαυόυ is presupposed by the vv.ll. in Eum. 416, 479, Aj. 672,El. 506, and Hesych. gives αίαυόυ χαλεπάυ, δειυόυ. But since in all four dramatic passages the form has only inferior attestation, and since there is no other literary evidence for it, it may safely be disregarded.

^{page 49 note 1} See Fraenkel in note on Ag. 1320.

^{page 49 note 2} Cf. Jebb in note ad loc.

^{page 50 note 1} That is an internal accusative is rightly established by Broadhead. See further Sept. 78 with Tucker, ad loc.