^{page 184 note 1} Cf. Eur. Etc., Phoen., Hipp., et Bacch., ed. Brunck, R. P., Argentorati, 1780, p. vGoogle Scholar.

^{page 184 note 2} ‘Zur grösstmöglichen Genauigkeit zweimal collationiert’, Jakrbb. f. Cl. Phil. ic (1869), p. 764Google Scholar:cf. Rhein. Mus. N.F. xxx (1875), p. 132Google Scholar and Prinz-Wecklein, Medea ²; Lipsiae, 1898, p. vi.

^{page 184 note 3} e.g. Earle says that in 1894 he examined the text of Alc. and Phoen. in this manuscript (cf. Eur. Med., ed. Earle, M. L., p. 258)Google Scholar, although in his edition of Alc. of that year he speaks of his own apparatus criticus as being obtained at second hand (p. vi).

^{page 184 note 4} This reproduction, which is not published for sale, has been distributed to the following libraries: The Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; Cambridge University Library; The Bodleian Library, Oxford; The Library of the British Museum, London; The Library of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, London; The John Rylands Library, Manchesp. ter; The National Library of Wales, Aberystand wyth; Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S A.; Yale University Library, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A.; Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris; Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Berlin; R. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence; R. Biblioteca di San Marco, Venice; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City; Library of the Department of Antiquities, Jerusalem.

^{page 184 note 5} Euripidis Fabulae, ediderunt Wecklein, R. Prinz et N.: vol. iiiGoogle Scholar, pars iii, Orestes, edidit N. Wecklein: Lipsiae, 1900.

^{page 185 note 2} Cf. Schwartz, E., Sckol. in Eur. i, p. viiGoogle Scholar: ‘multis locis scriptura antiqua detrita et a librario recenti plerumque recte restituta est’.

^{page 185 note 2} e.g. 185 ảν;⋯, κ⋯λαδνν; — 201 τ⋯ τ — 418, 439, 570 ⋯, τι — 1014 ⋯, τε — 1042 ⋯μπι,θεῖν;αι.

^{page 185 note 3} 221, 575, 679, 753, 1161 κ' οὐκ — 223 κ'αὐχμώδη–— 228 κ'ἅσθεν;⋯ — 236, 1523 κ' ἂν: — 239, 295 κ'εἰ — 509 χ'ὡ — — 510 κἂπειθ' — 558 κ'οὐχ⋯ — 578 κ⋯π⋯κτειν;' — 607, 670 κ'οὐχ — 680 κ⋯γὼ — 862 κ'⋯πεκ⋯ρωαν; — 887 κ'⋯π⋯ — 905 κ'μαθεῖ — 919 κ'⋯γορ⋯ς — 925 κ'ἄθεον; — 931 κ'οὐδε⋯ς — 941, 1632 κ'οὐ — 1060 κ'⋯γαμ⋯μν;ον;ος — 1144 κ'⋯δελπ⋯ν; — 1236 κ'⋯π⋯λν;σ' — 1341 κ'⋯πικο⋯πισον; — 1420 κ'⋯δ⋯κει — 1581 κ'⋯π' — (but 763 κ⋯μ⋯). Sometimes the same thing occurs in other similar the same thing occurs in other similar cases: 618 τ⋯λαμ⋯μν;ον;ος — 630 ὑ 'πιὼν; — 696, 700, 773, 907, 1189, 1398 ὂτ' ἄν;δον; — 1074 ταὐτ⋯ — 1393 τ'⋯ν;.

^{page 185 note 4} 53, 59, 60, 76, 101, 108, 207, 240, 249, 291, 337,353, 378, 384, 394, 424, 447, 448, 453, 461, 472, 504, 513, 522, 541, 559, 566, 568, 616, 672, 677, 714, 736, 749, 774, 822, 873, 893, 1032, 1098, 1132, 1188, 1252, 1280, 1287, 1313, 1330, 1344, 1362, 1539, 1583, 1638, (but ⋯ς at vv. 63, 227, 231, 265, 830, 991, 1004, 1119, 1211, 1220, 1421, 1469, 1610). εἴσω at vv. 280, 1231, 1531, 1572, but ἔσω v. 1222, besides where the word occurs at the end of a line (42, 60, 301, 866, 1221). 105 εἰσβλ⋯παι — 1119 εἴσιμεν; — 1312 εἰσπεσ⋯ν;τοσ — 1315 εἰσπεσο⋯σα.

^{page 185 note 5} The expression ‘me²’ at v. 1484 is obviously used so as to apply to the ‘manus secunda’ in two manuscripts (cf. note ad loc.), but it would appear to be synonymous with a² for our manuscript both here and at vv. 810, 832, 843, 1399, and 1465. The expression ‘m. I vel 2’ used by P.-W. at vv. 813 and 862 evidently means ‘a¹ vel a²’.

^{page 186 note 1} e.g. the word ἄπ⋯πασιν; above v. 329 is apparently a²: so are the letters ων; … ων; above v. 429 (cf. ων; at v. 810) and the corrections at vv. 1264, 1286, 1287, 1547 (cf. ην; at v. 843). The word δεῖ above v. 667 and ει above v. 1407 look to me like a³.

^{page 186 note 2} 218, 441, 449, 503, 535, 571, 605, 612, 649, 712, 739, 774, 1202, 1277, 1347, 1352, 1427, 1431, 1444, 1447, 1496, 1574, 1610, 1613, 1676.

^{page 186 note 3} Cf. C.Q. xxxii (1938), p. 199.

^{page 188 note 1} , P.-W. refers to this hand as ’m. I vel 3’ where it occurs at v. 813Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 2} The use of εἔμι goes back at least to the 9th cent. (Nicetas Byz.).

^{page 188 note 3} The Σα (εἰπ⋯ μοι σαπ⋯ς ⋯ τι δρ⋯ν;τες οὐκ ⋯⋯σι σε ζ⋯ν;) seems to show that v. 438 was present the manuscript from which a was copied and was only omitted by an oversight on the part of the scribe, who (as P.-W. note) continued misattributing the verses until v. 442: from this point onward he returned to the correct attributions. Verse 442 was thus attributed to Menelaus and the next verse also bore the same prefix. This fact was noticed by a diorthotes (apparently earlier than a²) who noted the apparent omission of a verse between 442 and 443.

^{page 189 note 1} In the manuscript this word comes at the end of a line (cf. vv. 1605 ff.).

^{page 189 note 2} τς can mean τοις, της, OI τις: I read τις here since it is used with ἔςτι. For the sign here used for ἔστι, cf. the gloss above v. 1077 [fol. 46υ].

^{page 190 note 1} In the manuscript this word comes at the end of a line.

It does not follow from this that εἰς was meant as an actual varia lectio in the text; it may have been merely explanatory (cf. εἰς τ⋯ above μ⋯λαθρα 1290, εἰsigmav; before κ⋯λευθον; 1312 before παῖδα 1423). Somewhat similar cases of brief explanatory glosses that bear a look of υυ. ll. are, among others, 159 περομ⋯ν;ω: sup. ω scr. ου — 294 ⋯ν;ακ⋯λυπτ' superscr. ου — 315 βροτοῖσιν; superscr. ων; — 321 ὦ add. ante μελαγχρ⋯τες — 461 τοῖσιν; ⋯ξειργασμ⋯ν;οις superscr. ων; … ων; … 548 τοῖς λ⋯γοιςιν; superscr. ων; … ων; — 677 Σ a ⋯ν;τ⋯ το⋯ μετ⋯ δακρ⋯ων; κα⋯ λ⋯ων; under in textu superscr. a² μετ⋯ … ων; … ων; … 1210 καλοῖσιν; ὑμεν;α⋯οισιν; superscr. ων; … ων; — 1565 ⋯μῇ χερ⋯ superscr. ⋯ς … ει … ος (i.e. ⋯μ⋯ς χειρ⋯ς).

^{page 191 note 2} This ν; (~) may be a¹ but if it is, it is an after-thought: and it would appear to be the only occasion on which a¹ used this form of ν;. Elsewhere, in at least two dozen cases, final -σιν;is written with the three letters one after the other on the line.

^{page 191 note 3} The similar correction at this point in Marc. 471 is noted in C.Q. xxxii, p. 199, n. 3. The Jerusalem palimpsest also has this correction, as noticed by Horna, (Hermes, lxiv, 423–4)Google Scholar.

^{page 191 note 4} In C.Q. xxxii, p. 199, n. 3, I said ‘1484 ἄρεως corr.in ἄρεος A² (non ἄρεος A’. (I apologize for the mistake. P.-W. have ‘ἄρεος (ο in ras. scr. m²) Aa’. I cannot state without qualification that the underlying letter here is ω, though it almost certainly is in A ( = Marc. 471).

^{page 191 note 5} The word μεν;⋯λ$$$; might be misread as μεν;ελ$$$; (i.e. μεν;⋯λεων;, as in t, etc., cf. C.Q. xxxii, p. 197, n. I, and p. 200 n. 1). It could not be so misread in the Jerusalem palimpsest H, since H spells out the word μεν;⋯λεων; without abbreviation. This same sign is used for ω in οὕτω 1514 both in this manuscript and in Marc. 471. Here οὕτως in Laur. 32. 2 may be a misreading of ~ for the very similar abbreviation for ως for the very similar abbreviation for ως. The possibility of this kind of error was apparently realized, since a² adds the letters ων; to the sign ō in ⋯λ⋯κων; 732 and in πrho;ον;ῷν; 1514, and the ltters ως to the sign ~ in κακ⋯?ν; 1599.

^{page 192 note 1} In the manuscript this word comes at the end of a line (cf. vv. 774 ff.).