^{page 39 note 1} Jones, D. Mervyn, ‘The Manuscripts oi Aristophanes, Knights (I)’, C.Q. N.s. ii (1952), 168 ff., referred to hereafter as ‘codd. Eq. I.’ I should like to thank again Professor Robertson, Mr. Deas, and the librarians and photographers of the libraries containing Aristophanes manuscripts for their advice and help: and also to express my gratitude to Professor R. Pfeiffer for some most valuable discussions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} See Cary, E. in Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil. xviii (1907), 171 f.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} See the collations of White, J. W. and Cary, E., Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil. xxx (1919), 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 4} The statement, found in Zacher's edition and in the Oxford text, that Vp3 reads 1273 and 1331 , is erroneous.

^{page 39 note 5} See Holzinger, C. R. von in Mélanges Chatelain (Paris, 1910), p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} The text of Eq. in Vv5 contains the Triclinian sign for a scanned short , but not that for one scanned long , although the reading 162 seems to require it. (On the Triclinian for the see Triclinius' own prolegomena (No. XVII in Dübner, section ) and Fraenkel, Eduard, Aeschylus Agamemnon, i, pp. 18 f.) Vv5 also marks long a, ι, u and contains some elementary glosses on points of quantity.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} The damage in Vesp. has been noted by Γ⁴, who has also filled up many smaller lacunae where the scribe of Γ could not read his original, Γ⁴ in Vesp. seems to have used B, and to be identical with the corrector in B, as is the case in Ach. (see Cary, E. in Harv. Stud. xviii. 187 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} E in Ach. is a member of the Φ group (Cary, , loc. cit., pp. 168 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} Two further illustrations of the alinement of  may be given, from the Arguments to Eq.: in Arg. I 1. 32–33 Coulon, the words are omitted by Φ (and not inserted by any of the correctors in Γ) but found in v Cf., on the other hand, the same Argument, line 27: , from

^{page 42 note 1} The statement (codd. Eq. I, pp. 178, 180) that Γ has the correct reading is erroneous: VEAΓ all read . av was added by Hermann.

^{page 43 note 1} On Triclinius's work on Aristophanes see Holzinger, Karl, Vorstudien zur Beurteilung der Erklärertätigkeit des Demetrios Triklinios zu dem Komödien des Aristophanes (Sitz. d. Ak. d. Wiss. in Wien, ccxvii. 4 (1939)).Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} This is the order given by Dübner: Γ ends at (p. 45, col. 2, 1. 12 Dübn.) Γ³ has put in from to the end. VE have these two sections in reverse order (The sentence (11. 9–10 Dübn.) makes nonsense here and may be an attempt to explain 771–2: the following sentence is a scholion on 358.)

^{page 45 note 3} Ald., by a misprint: corr. Gelenius.

^{page 45 note 3} Codd. Eq. I, pp. 170 f., 183.

^{page 46 note 1} Apparently a gloss on

^{page 46 note 2} M omits

^{page 48 note 1} Cf., besides the examples just quoted, readings at 517, 535, 542 quoted on p. 42 above. Very occasionally, on the other hand, S sides with R against Y M, cf. 357, 680, 761 quoted above, p. 47.

^{page 48 note 2} Cf. S s.v. ad fin. (= σM): S, M (fallitur Adler): Schnee.

^{page 48 note 3} This conclusion was reached by Bünger, G. (de Ar. Eq. Lys. Thesm. apud Suid. reliquiis, Diss. Argent. 1878, pp. 20Google Scholar fF.) and supported by Zacher, K. in his review of Bünger, Bursian, 1892, p. 34. The independent value of M had also been maintained by A. von Velsen, ed. Eq. (1869), praef. p. 8.Google Scholar