^{page 232 note 1} ‘Marxism and Textual Criticism’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldl-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe xii (1963), 43–52 (abbreviated here as MTC); see also ‘Simplex Ordo’, CQ. N.S. xv (1965), 161–75 (SO).Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} Schiitz, C. G., Aeschyli Tragoediae, London, 1823, vol. iiiGoogle Scholar; Dindorf, G., Aeschyli Tragoediae, Oxford, 1851, vol. iiiGoogle Scholar; Philologus xx (1863), 30–50Google Scholar; I. A. C. Van Heusde, Aeschyli Agamemnon, The Hague, 1864; N. Wecklein, Aeschyli fabulae cum lectionibus … ab H. Vitelli denuo collatis, Berlin, 1885Google Scholar; Tucker, T., The Choephori of Aeschylus, Cambridge, 1901Google Scholar; Blass, F., Aischylos1 Choephoren, Halle, 1906Google Scholar; Die | Eumeniden des Aischylos, Halle, 1907Google Scholar; Turyn, A., The Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Aeschylus, New York, 1943, 125–37.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} I have photographs of MFGT, but not of E. The only other independent witness for the Oresteia (Ag. 1–348) is V. which has no scholia.

^{page 233 note 2} Textual Criticism, p. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} For only twentieth-century sources are cited in Dimitrakos. Other vernacular words to be found in the Triclinian scholia are It seems that this source for the history of Modern Greek has been neglected.

^{page 234 note 2} Turyn, , p. 106.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} Ibid., p. 123.

^{page 235 note 1} This scholium is omitted by Blass. It is printed correctly, as above, by Dindorf together with the following variant, attributed to ‘schol. rec.’: Wecklein has the same. In Schütz the expanded version is printed alone, and in this form it goes back to Vettori (1557). I do not know where it comes from. It is not in FGT.

^{page 236 note 1} Headlam, W., On Editing Aeschylus (1891), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; ‘Upon Aeschylus’, CR xiv (1900), 195Google Scholar; Thomson, G., Oresteia (1966), i. 73–78; MTC 47–48.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 2} There are a few exceptions, which arise from the history of the language: see my Oresteia (1938), i. 86, n. 2, and below, p. 236 n.3.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 1} Headlam, , On Editing Aeschylus, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 2} Wilamowitz, p. xxix.

^{page 237 note 3} In the sense of ‘hate’ or ‘loathing’ the words etc., became obsolete and were regularly glossed by etc. (see MTC 47); but in the special sense of ‘sullen’ the adjective survived and produced some new de rivatives ( etc.), and in this sense it was used as a gloss Hesych.ibid.

^{page 237 note 4} Fraenkel, , i. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 5} Fraenkel, loc. cit.; K. Latte, ‘Die Forschung auf dem Gebiet der griechischen Lexikographen’, Forschungen und Fortschritten, 1954, 148. It is surprising, in view of his unqualified support for Wilamowitz's statement, that Fraenkel should find this conjecture of Schmidt's ‘very attractive’ (ii. 318).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 6} Maas, , p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} It was evidently designed to explain the Biblical use of in the sense of with reference to the Babylonian Captivity (Ev. Matt. 1. 11, 2 Reg. 24. 15–16).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} The use of the superlative suggests that was understood as

^{page 240 note 1} SO 167.

^{page 241 note 1} There is one other possibility, (Pauw), which fits the context well, cf. 529. This word is not actually glossed by (Hesych. ) but in this context, being virtually synonymous with it might have been.

^{page 243 note 1} On the various senses covered by see Poll. 3. 145.