^{page 126 note 1} C. Q. XIII. 122.

^{page 126 note 2} Eustath. 1577. 25.

^{page 126 note 3} ‘The dative is one of relation: his death is a matter between the gods and himself… The implied meaning is that his death has been brought about by the gods; but θεoῖς should not be taken as a dative of the agent “ by the gods”; indeed, that sense would be forced,' etc.

^{page 127 note 1} It has been suggested to me that έƲ κεƲοῖς means rather ‘against those that are helpless,’ i.e. Tecmessa herself. This suits admirably the opposition of Aľας and έμοι in the following line, and helps the contention advanced that the lines are preparatory to the next scene, where Eurysaces is described as κ ε Ʋ ς σκúμƲοƲ λεαίƲης (956 sq.). Nevertheless, I am not convinced that έƲ κεƲοῖς should be separated from 0.T. 287 ᾀλ οὐκ Ʋ ᾀρƳοῖς οủδέ τοτ' πραξμηƲ.

^{page 128 note 1} Gk. Lit. ³ I. 2. p. 84.

^{page 128 note 2} Ancient Gk. Lit. ², p. 243.

^{page 128 note 3} Gk. Tragedy, p. 104.

^{page 128 note 4} Poet. 1451a, 15.

^{page 129 note 1} Gh. Theater, p. 262.

^{page 130 note 1} Poet. 1453a, I.

^{page 130 note 2} p. xxix.

^{page 130 note 3} Ov.Ibis 467 and schol.

^{page 132 note 1} Cf. Pind. Ol. I.35, etc.

^{page 133 note 1} Nem. 8. 24.

^{page 133 note 2} The course of the disorder appears clearly in Zenob. I. 43.

^{page 134 note 1} Lycurg. 113. This example forcibly recalls the proceedings taken against the regicides at the time of the Restoration.