^{page 168 note 1} Except to the extent that, as is shown by T.'s ref., Dionysius (de avibus 2. 19), speaking as a naturalist and in the time of Hadrian, asserted that ᾂδοѵσɩ δ' οὐχί θρηѵδες ώσπερ θί λкѵόѵες.

^{page 168 note 2} A singing creature may naturally appear here and there in association with a singing deity, as the nightingale stimulates Apollo to rivalry at Ar. Birds 217, or the cicala serves the Muses at Plat.Phaedr. 259c.

^{page 169 note 1} At Soph. El. 19, although the night is not black with stars, it must be black to be starry; ibid. 758 the antithesis of epithets μέγɩστοѵ…δεɩλαίας makes all the difference.

^{page 170 note 2} ‘έμοɩγε’; however it may be with others. To my taste, the γε in μοɩγε impairs the pathos of the line; but I do not presume to invite others to think so. I note however that Denniston, Greek Particles p. 51, speaks of τάρ in Attic as ‘colloquial in tone,’ ‘avoided in formal language,’ and on p. 52 as associated with ‘a break-off, a sudden change of topic’ I had observed that all Aesch.'s three exx. are with a verb in the 2nd pers.; P.V. 343 (but let me tell you); 1011 (but really, you know); Pers. 333 (but look here,but I say).

^{page 169 note 3} I regard Enger's γε for γάρ as certain, forthe reasons given in Headlam's note.

^{page 169 note 4} I may say that I punctuate ‘ϕε’ ταλ ϕρ. Ιτυν’ ‘Ιτυν’ στέν кτλ I do not see how one can do otherwise.

^{page 169 note 5} Here How and Wells make an extraordinary comment; it is no explanation of a passage which needs none; but it would be an exact and necessary explanation, if γεύσας were γενσάμενος and αɭνα ‘eternity’! Nor can I see (with orthodoxy, vid. Rawlinson's tr.) that γεσαɭ τɩ is γε;σα ϒɩνά τɩνος. God made life as such taste sweet; his ϕθόνος appears in his accompanying dispensations.

^{page 169 note 6} Mr Denniston, my main victim, will bear this out; I owe to him the refutation on logical grounds of an attempt not mentioned here.

^{page 169 note 7} These are given in the best general account of the myth, Pearson's introduction to the fragments of Sophocles' Tereus.

^{page 170 note 1} See 1316 for an opposite picture, also, of course, derived from nature.

^{page 170 note 2} The distinction, if any, is purely technical; it is regarded as negligible by Kühner-Blass I p. 522 [see (b) and n.], but is nicely determined by Brugmann-Thumb⁴ (p. 519), who note that the dative became eclipsed after Homer; cf. L. and S.⁸ s.v. AI2 fin. and the authorities cited there.