^{page 1 note 1} The so-called Grammarians, collected in Dübner, Schol. Graeca in Arist. cum Prol. Grammaticorum, and Kaibel, Comicorum Graecorum Frg.

^{page 1 note 2} Schol. Ar. Frogs404 ff. The lines in question are:

Ιакχε φιλοχορευτ⋯, συμπρ⋯πεμπ⋯ με.

405 σὺ γ⋯ρ κατεσχ⋯σω μ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ γ⋯λωτι

κ⋯π' εὐτελε⋯ᾳ τ⋯ν τε σανδαλ⋯σκον

κα⋯ τ⋯ ῥ⋯κος, κ⋯ξε⋯ρες ὥστ'

⋯ζημ⋯ους πα⋯ζειν τε κα⋯ Χορε⋯ειν.

The reference is, of course, not to the Dionysia or Lenaea, but to the procession along the NO. I., VOL. XXIX. Sacred Way on the sixth day of the Eleusinia. The Scholiast misunderstood this.

^{page 1 note 3} Aristotle was the author of a Didascaliaeand a Νῖκαι Διονυσιακαί. The fact that he talks of a Synchoregiaat the Dionysia only, when it is almost imPossible to believe that the new regulations did not apply to the Lenaea as well, makes it extremely likely that the Scholiast took his quotation from a work which dealt specifically with the Dionysia. The scholium on Birds1377, however, shows that the Didascaliaewere also accessible.

^{page 2 note 1} I.G.II. 1280. See also: Brinck, Inscr. Graecae ad Choregiam Perlinentes, and Köhler, , Hermes, II. 23Google Scholar. The unusual joint-inscription is probably to be explained by the fact that Mnesistratus, Choregusof Dicaeogenes, is the father of Mnesarchus, Choregusof Ariphron. The second inscription is J.G.II.Suppl.1280b, where the comedy of Aristophanes apparently preceded the tragedy of Sophocles. Foucart identifies the tragedy with the Oedipus Coloneus, produced in 401. Kohler prefers to regard the inscription as pre-Euclidean. It then follows that the play in question must have been staged before Sophocles' death: it might be the Philoctetesof 409 (cp. Reisch, P.-W. s.v. Choregia) Other indications lacking, the epigraphical evidence is indecisive. But see p. 3, note 2.

^{page 2 note 2} Lysias, 21. 1, 21. 4, 19. 29, 19. 42.

^{page 2 note 3} In tragedy conventional costumes were probably hired for the occasion at à low rate. Cp. Dittenberger, , Sylloge, II. 424. 42 ffGoogle Scholar. for a later example.

^{page 2 note 4} Aristotle, Pol.3. 3. 1276b.

^{page 2 note 5} One talent is, I think, the minimum. If Lysias' client was a Svnchoregusin 410, and also bore the larger part of the expense, he would surely not have omitted to mention it as a fact in his favour; and only in that case should we get a total of less than a talent.

^{page 2 note 6} Lysias, 21. 2.

^{page 2 note 7} Dem., 21. 156, where he says: Τραγψδοῖς κεχορ⋯γηκ⋯ ποθ՚ οὗΤος, ⋯γὼ δ⋯ αὐληΤαῖς ⋯νδρ⋯σιν. κα⋯ ŏΤι Το⋯Το Τ⋯ ⋯ν⋯λωμα ⋯Κε⋯νης τ⋯ς δαπ⋯νης πλ⋯ον ⋯στ⋯ πολλψ οὐδε⋯ς ⋯γνοεῖ δ⋯που.

^{page 2 note 8} I.G.II. 973. Astydamas entered his Achilles, Athamas, and Antigone. A single Satyric play was now put on at the beginning of the competition.

^{page 3 note 1} I have said nothing of the possibility that all Choregiaewere reorganized in 412 or 406, as it does not directly concern the argument. But it is worth pointing out here that the men's chorus of 409 could not possibly have cost 100 minaeall told; therefore, if it was ‘synchoregized,’ it must have been in 406: and if it was not, the argument in the text is unaffected.

^{page 3 note 2} Confirming Foucart's dating of I.G.II. Suppl. 1280b, as against KÖohler's.

^{page 3 note 3} 56,3.

^{page 3 note 4} Or even earlier. Cp. I.G.II. Suppl. 971, which dates to 329.

^{page 3 note 5} A.J.A., X. Cp. Haigh, , Attic Theatre, 3rd ed., p.54Google Scholar, note3, for the same view.

^{page 3 note 6} Ath. Mitt.7.348.

^{page 3 note 7} I.G.II. 1285, which runs:

ήδυγέλωτι χορῷ Διονύσια σ μ ποτε έν …

μνημόσυνον δέ θεῷ νίκης τόδε δ⋯ρον …

δήμψ μέν κόσμον, ζ⋯λον πατρ⋯ κισσοøο …

τοûδε δέ ἔτι πρότερος στεφανηφόρον ε …

Köhler restores: (1)σύλ ποτε Ėνίκων; (2) δ⋯ρον ἔθηκαν; (3) κισσοροροὕ;ντι (4) εΪλετ' άγ⋯να.

^{page 3 note 8} See Hermes, LXV, 242 f., No. 268. where Wilamowitz shows conclusively that kö;hler's restorations are impossible. According to Wilamowitz's interpretation, line I is to be construed: ‘… [he once gained a victory together witha merry chorus,’ instead of: ‘…together [they] gained a victory with a merry chorus,’ as Köhler and Capps want to interpret.

^{page 3 note 9} The lettering is the only evidence of date. Presumably KÖhler assigned the inscription to c. 350 or later because of the presence of Oϒ, instead of simple 0, in the first word of line 4. The O (for OT) and E (for El) of the old Attic alphabet persisted for some time after the adoption of the Ionic alphabet in 403. But this is a rule with numerous exceptions. Cp. Larfeld, W., Handbuch, II. 462–3Google Scholar, and Meisterhans, , Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, 20. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 10} Leptines, 23.

^{page 3 note ll} I.G.97Ic. A badly jumbled copy of what seems to have been an inscription in three vertical columns. Two things in connection with it seem certain, however. The first is the date (archonship of Theodotus): and the second is the use of ⋯χρρήγει in two places. The Choregimentioned, whether tragic or comic, must have been single.

^{page 3 note 12} 19.29,42. De Bonis Aristophanis.

^{page 3 note 13} Or over eight hundred pounds, according to present-day monetary values (cp. Haigh, , op.cit., p. 65Google Scholar). The calculation of modern currency-equivalents is very difficult. The figure given represents, of course, purchasing-power, not intrinsic worth.

^{page 4 note 1} Lys. 19. 29.

^{page 4 note 2} Choregifor any given year were designated by the Archons concerned when they took office in the preceding July. Ar. cannot have been appointed Choregusfor the festivals of 393, as in July 394 he was still a poor man. Cp.Ath.pol.56.

^{page 4 note 3} Haigh, , op. cit., p. 54Google Scholar, note 3, quotes this -passage of Lysias as evidence for the existence of the Synchoregiac. 390. But it is quite impossible to get this sense out of the Greek, which runs: χαλεπόν … τραγψδοîς τε δίς χορηΥ⋯σαι πέρα ύτοû τε καί τοû πατρος He also tries to prove from Isaeus, 5. 36, that the Synchoregiawas in existence in 389. But the reference there is to the Syntrierarchy, a very different thing.

^{page 4 note 4} Videargs. of Acharn., Knights, Clouds, Frogs, etc., as compared with that of the Plutus. Ath. Pol., 56, shows that the number of plays remained at five until at least the last quarter of the fourth century.

^{page 4 note 5} It is, I think, universally acknowledged that the absence of choral lyrics in the Eccl. and Plutusis not to be explained by faulty MS. transmission, in spite of Clouds888. The evidence of the Grammarians as to the use of XOPOT and its presence in New Comedy are proof conclusive. In the case of the Parabasiswe have a further indication of the same thing. The fact that the traditional appeal of the Chorus for victory, which should have formed part of the Parabasisin the Eccl., appears in the Exodusshows clearly that Aristophanes never inserted a Parabasisin the play; and what is true of the Eccl. must be equally true of the Plutusproduced four years later.

^{page 4 note 6} I borrow the term Syzygyfrom Zielinski and White as a convenient label for a perfectly recognisable division of Aristophanes' earlier plays, similar to the Syzygywhich closes the Parabasis. It consists of a Stropheand Antistropheby the chorus, with an Epirrhemaand Antepirrhemaspoken by the actors. For variations in the order of their delivery v. White, , The Verse of Greek Comedy, p. 322Google Scholar, and Zielinski, Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie.

^{page 5 note 1} Only the Acharniansand Lysistratahave three: and the Peacehas merely one.

^{page 5 note 2} Produced by Araros, Aristophanes' son, c. 376.

^{page 5 note 3} Ar. Frogs, Arg. III.

^{page 5 note 4} Lysias, 21. 4.

^{page 6 note 1} The fact that the number of comedies festival was increased some time between the Frogsand the Plutuspoints in the same direction. Cp. Infra, pp. 8–9.

^{page 6 note 2} It is often assumed that the economic disorders of the last ten years of the fifth century continued for at least the first half of the fourth (e.g. by Haigh, pp. 53–4); without good reason. True, Dem. states that the tribe Pandionis failed to produce a dithyrambic Choregusfor three years running c. 355: and Isoc. (15. 145) that c. 350 only 1200 citizens were available for liturgies as owning over three talents (cp. Isae. 3. 80: Dem. 27. 64: Harpocr. s.v.χίλιοιδιακόσιοι). But this is to be interpreted as the result of the gradual throttling of the prosperity of half a century (404 onwards) by the ever-increasing demands made on the rich through propertytaxation for the support of the poor. The growth of Piraeus, rise of banking and credit, and commercial activity (proved by the retention of 12 per cent. as the current rate of interest in spite of the greatly increased amount of coin in circulation), which are noticeable from 500 onwards suggest anything but a prolonged depression. Cp. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. II 336 ff.

^{page 6 note 3} An attack upon Epicrates and Phormisius who had taken bribes upon a recent mission to the Persian court.

^{page 6 note 4} Fragm. Comicorum Graec. I. p. 273.

^{page 7 note 1} Kock, 191.

^{page 8 note 1} Cp. Kähler, De Ar. Eccl., Jena, 1889. As K. remarks, we expect after the Prologusto see husbands dressed in their wives' clothes complaining that they cannot go to the Ecclesia; instead, on comes Blepyrus bemoaning his poverty without a word as to his lost vote at all. So with his neighbour: they both think of themselves, not of Athens. It is the spirit of New Comedy. I fully agree with Kähler's analysis of the Ecclesiazusae: but I cannot agree with his explanation of the disappearance of the chorus.

^{page 8 note 2} For the sake of completeness I had better add that the alternative hypothesis, viz. that the abolition of the synchoregialed to the dethronement of the chorus from the position of importance which it had occupied in the comedy of the fifth century, is untenable. If we assume that the chorus remained as vigorous as ever down to c. 394, and that it then suddenly lost parabasis, Syzygies, etc., owing to the abolition of the Synchoregia, we are assuming in fact that expenditure was being officially limited, that the Synchoregiawas not abolished because of returning prosperity, but from a desire to alter the whole development of comedy at a blow (otherwise it would have been retained). And such limitation of expenditure is flatly contradicted by the whole idea of public service as the Greeks conceived it.

^{page 9 note 1} Cp. Schol. Ar.Ran. 404 ff.t quoted on p. 2. There is another reference in the scholium on Ran. 153: ò Κινησίας έπραγματεύσατο κατά τ⋯ν κωμικ⋯ν ώς είεν άχορήγητοι. According to Aristotle's Didascaliae(Schol. Ar.Av.1377 ff.) there were two persons named Cinesias: so there may have been some confusion. The Choregiawas not abolished, of course, until the very end of of the fourth century: and the Schol. may have misinterpreted a reference to the removal of the Synchoregiawhich would have the effect of clinching the subordinate position of the chorus for the future (hence Strattis' χοροκτόνος k.). Capps prefers to take χοροκτόνος in a purely metaphorical sense, as Cinesias was a notoriously bad poet (A.J.A., 1896).

^{page 9 note 2} There are thirteen in all, plus two epigrams on Aristophanes. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 either have nothing to say about the chorus or are repeated verbatimin the three discussed above.

^{page 9 note 3} His argument can be summarized as follows:

(a)Under the democracy no restriction was placed upon poets.

(b)Under the Thirty legal satisfaction became possible for the victims lampooned: one instance was the drowning of Eupolis by his enemies.

(c)Athenians no longer ‘felt like’ voting Choregi(προθνμίαν είχον). Insurance: the Aeolosiconhad no choral lyrics.

(d)Change of plot followed. Character of Middle Comedy typified by Aeolosicon, 'Οδνσσείς of Cratinus, and numbers of Old Comedies without Parabasesor lyrics.

(e) Middle Comedy omitted Parabasis, because there were no choruses after the disappearance of Choregiwere appointed by an Archon until c. 307 B.C.

^{page 9 note 4} The ‘election’ is of course nonsense. Choregiwere appointed by an Archon until c. 307 B.C.

^{page 9 note 5} He can be summarized thus:

(a) Opposition of the rich produces a Middle Comedy of innuendo out of the Old Comedy of abuse, and New Comedy out of Middle.

(b) Old Comedy ends with the drowning of Eupolis by Alcibiades, who was Strategusat the time, in revenge for the sarcasms of the Baptae.

(c) Bill passed by Alcibiades permitting satire by innuendo only: Obeyed by Eupolis and others. Hence Middle Comedy.

(d) Even innuendo is forbidden: hence New Comedy, which falls back on beggars and aliens.

^{page 10 note 1} The vital points are:

(a) A ψήϕισμα χορηγικόν was passed forbidding personal satire. Old Comedy's raison d'êtrewas now gone. There were also no more Choregi.

(b) First result: Cocalus. Model for New Comedy (philemon and Menander).

(c) Second result: Plutus. XOPOT inserted to give the actors a rest and time to change. Also imitated by New Comedy.

^{page 10 note 2} E.g. Aristophanes' Amphiarausand Birds.

^{page 10 note 3} Eupolis is continually turning up as a corpus vilein the Grammarians; and the sole consistent piece of information about him which emerges is the fact that he was drowned. This is confirmed by tradition generally, with the further detail that the scene of his death was a battle at sea against Sparta (Suidas). We know from Cicero, Att. 6. I, that he survived 415 by several years; so it is conceivable that he met his end at Cynossema or Aegospotami, an assumption which would explain how Platonius comes to date his death c. 404. But the association of the author of the Baptaewith drowning is suspicious, to say the least of it.

^{page 11 note 1} Individualized as Alcibiades in the Scholiast's version.

^{page 11 note 2} op.cit.

^{page 11 note 3} kock,130. The fragment in question runs: ⋯στ' εϊ τις όρχοῖτ' εû, θέαμ' ⋯ν νûν δέ δρ⋯σιν ο⋯δέν, άλλ' ὣσπερ άπόπληκτοι ότάδην έοτ࿶τες ώρύονται.

^{page 11 note 4} E.g. by Ritter, Ribbeck, Boeckh, and Zielinski.

^{page 11 note 5} 893 ff. is an example quoted by Kähler.

^{page 12 note 1} Brit. Mus. Pap. 688 and 2822.

^{page 12 note 2} LI. 316–321, where εἷδος can only mean ‘change your style.’

^{page 12 note 3} Cp.Plato, LawsII. 654b: χορεία γε μήν ῲρχησίς τε καί ᾠδήτό σύνολόν, and v. Köorte, Hermes, 1908, for a sensible discussion of the question.

⁴ Plutus, 771. Brit. Mus. Pup. 688, 2822.

⁵ Vita, II: είς τό δ ιαναπαύαεσθαι τ σκηνικά πρόσωπα καί μετεόκενάάσθαι έπιγράπει XOPOT, φ θεγγ ό μ ε ν ο ς έν έκείνοις ἅ καί όρ⋯μεν τούς νέους, οὓτως ⋯πιϒράφ; οντας ζήλψ 'Αριστοάνους.

I have inserted a comma after νέους; thus punctuated, the sentence seems to me to be quite satisfactory. There is no need to suppose it corrupt. Cp. also Vitruvius, Lib. V, Praef.4: Graeci quoque poetae comici interponentes e choro canticum diviserunt spatia fabularum; which is almost certainly a reference to New Comedy.

^{page13 note1} Pol. 3. 3. 1276b: ὢοπερ γε καίχορόν δτε μένκωϣκόν κωϣκόν Ȍτε δέ τραϒικòν Ëτερον εἶναί φαμεν, τ⋯ναύτ⋯ν πολλάκις άνθρώπων ŏντων.

^{page 13 note 2} kock, 25.

³ In Tim. 157: πρώην έν το⋯ς κατ' ᾰγρους Διονυ-σίοις κωμψδ⋯ν ŏντων έν Κολλντῷ καί ΙΙαρμένοντος τοû κωμικοû ύποκριτοû είπόμτος τι πρός τόν χορόνάνάπαιστον έν ᾤ ᾔν εῖναί τινας πόρνους μεγάλους Τιμαρχώδεις …

^{page 13 note 4} E.g. I.G.II. 585, a performance at Aexonê.

^{page 14 note 1} A.J.A.

^{page 14 note 2} Kock, 237. The lines are:

ν⋯ν δ' ϊνα μή παντελ⋯ς Βοκώτιοι

φαίνησθ' εፙîναι τîος τοςδιασύρειν ύμ⋯ς είθισμένοις

ώς άκίνητοι ν⋯ν εῖναί βοâν καί πονεîν μóνον

καί δειπνει;ν έπιστάμενοι διά τέλους τήν νύχθ' öλην

γυμνο⋯σθ' αùτούς θâττον ἄπαντες.

The third line of the text is corrupt, but the general sense is clear enough. The oracle of Trophonius was at Lebadea: hence the chorus is composed of Boeotians. For the dancing cp. Schol. Ar. Pax729: ϒυμνòν γάρ ποιο⋯σι τòν χ ορόν οί κωμικοί άεί, οί κωμικοί⋯άεί.

^{page 14 note 3} Only two examples out of fourteen do not come from a Parabasis. (a) A fragment from the Thracian Womenof Cratinus, Kock 74, which is seriously corrupted, but certainly written in Eupolideans and equally certainly a piece of dialogue; (b) a fragment from the Sicyoniusof Alexis, Kock 206, which is a more doubtful instance of the metre.

^{page 14 note 4} My reasons for dating it thus are as follows. In fragm. I of the same play occurs:

εῖθ' Ó παραμασήτης έν βοτοîς αύδώμενος.

Now Moschion recurs in the Phileuripidesof Axionicus and the Phoenicidesof Strato. We know that Axionicus was writing during the reign of Alexander: and the reference to a Philetas, who can only be the famous Philetas of Cos, in the Phoenicidesdates that play to 300 B.C. at the earliest, as it was not until then that Philetas came into prominence. It follows that we must place the Trophoniuslate in the fourth century, most probably in the last quarter of it, as Moschion would not remain a subject of topical allusion for a vast number of years.

^{page 14 note 5} The present congress at Olympia is contrasted in the text with earlier ones which seem to have fallen after the Peloponnesian War, but its object is not stated. Kock thinks that the only date possible is one immediately after the Chremonidean War of 265: but that implies that the play must have been based on historical fact. Why could it not have been nationalist propaganda or pure imagination?

^{page 15 note 1} Cp. Menander' remark in Plutarch, Glor. Ath. 347e: πεπο⋯ηκα τ⋯ν κωμῳδίαν, ᾠκονόμηται; γ⋯ρ ⋯ δɩάθεσις δεῖ δ' αὐτῇ τ⋯ στιϰ⋯δια ⋯πᾷσαι.

^{page 15 note 2} Thus it has been pointed out that the arbitration-scene in the Epitrepontesis a relic of the Agon. ‘Debates’ can be traced in many Roman comedies as well (e.g. Persa, Act II, Sc. 2): in all by those who are determined to find them there. But excavation of this sort is always of very doubtful value.

^{page 15 note 3} The evidence is summarized and criticized in Legrand, , Daos, pp. 464ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 15 note 4} Praef. Adelphoe, I. 4. Wessner, Vol. 2, p. 4.

^{page 15 note 5} The date is fixed on the internal evidence of 11. 117 and 194 by Bethe, who thinks it was produced as Men. 's first comedy in 321. Clark, , Class. Phil. 1906Google Scholar, gives good reasons for supposing that it was both written and produced in 324–3.

^{page 15 note 6} The break at the end of Act II must certainly be common to Menander and Terence, as a complete night intervenes. Similarly, at the close of IV Menedemus and Chremes leave the stage for a considerable interval, and return to it at the beginning of V; it has been empty in the meanwhile. On the other hand, the old division between III and IV will not do: it makes III end with the opening of a door, and Sostrata does not come out until the beginning of IV. It may mark a fresh scene; but Act IV cannot begin until 1.668 at least. Further, Flickinger has shown quite decisively that Act I ends at 170 for Menander. Vide, Class. Phil. 1912, and infra p. 20Google Scholar.

^{page 15 note 7} Heauton, Prol. 4–5.

^{page 15 note 8} The internal evidence amounts to this, Timarchides of Athens is serving with the King of Persia in Arabia, and the ‘Persian’ sells a captive Arab girl in Athens. In line 498 Persia is used as including Arabia: and that can only have been possible when Persian dominion was at its height. Although in 506 (Chrysopolim Persae cepere urbcm in Arabia), Chrysopolis is a patent fiction, and the entire story concocted by Toxilus to fool Dordalus, the validity of the reference to Persian power is not affected: the deception has to have some semblance of truth, and will not therefore have passed the bounds of historical probability. Wilamowitz first drew attention to this evidence: and he has been followed since by Leo and Hüffner. He is attacked by Meyer, M.(Persaof Plautus, . Comment. Phil. Jenenses, 1907, Vol. 8, pt. 1):Google Scholarbut I think that the balance of probability still rests on the side of an early date.

^{page 15 note 9} The possibility that the original of the Persamight have consisted of either more or less than five acts can be discounted in view of the entire absence of evidence as to the occurrence of such an irregular number in Greek comedy. But even if it is admitted, the alternatives stated above hold good. Either the Persawas episodic, or it was built on the old pattern.

^{page 16 note 1} Cp. Wilamowitz, , Das Schiedsqericht, p. 121Google Scholar, note 1. Wil. objects to the length of Act IV and the fact that the stage is empty five times in the first three acts.

^{page 16 note 2} Act I, Sc. 2. The monologue is almost entirely irrelevant, and is strongly Roman in language. Leo has observed that once or twice in Plautus a song by a Parasite or other character which does nothing to further the action is in serted at points where XOPOT would naturally have occurred in the Greek version. Cp. Hermes, 1908, and Most. 313, Cure. 461, and Asin. 809.

^{page 16 note 3} E.g. Casina. Here Act II is as much out of proportion as Act IV of the Persa; and if the first scene of Act III is included in it, as it obviously must be (cp. Legrand, , op. cit., p. 472)Google Scholar, it becomes longer still.

^{page 16 note 4} The stage is empty at lines 53, 167, 250, 328,399, and 753. 167, 328, and 753 are the end of Acts I, II, and IV. The emptying of the stage at 399 is to be explained, I feel sure, as the true elose of Act III: at present Toxilus remains” on the stage throughout the interval between III and IV, and that is very unsatisfactory. I can not agree with Legrand's division of the play into acts beginning at 53, 329, 449, and 753: his reasons are entirely unconvincing (p. 488, notes 5).

^{page 16 note 5} I cannot help feeling that Act V with its drinking and buffoonery and dances on the stage supports a fourth-century date for the Persa. It has moments of sheer Old Comedy in it.

^{page 16 note 6} Legrand, (op. cit., p. 465)Google Scholarargues that the introduction of a five-act play must have been later than the time of Aristotle, or he would have mentioned it. But Aristotle's treatise on comedy has been lost: and his silence therefore means has been lost: and his silence therefore means nothing.

^{page 16 note 7} The plays concerned are the Epitrepontes, Periceiromenê, Samia, and ?Epiclerus.

^{page 17 note 1} The third passage is 11. 584–5 of the Cairo Fragment. The heading XOPOT is certain enough: but only a portion of the final words of the preceding lines is preserved.

^{page 17 note 2} Epitr.St. Petersburg Fragm. 11. 33–5.

^{page 17 note 3} Thus Van Leeuwen assigns the lines, very improbably, to the Cook.

^{page 17 note 4} Wilamowitz is following Jernstedt. Jensen takes the same view.

^{page 17 note 5} I may say here that I do not intend to raise the question whether the stage was high or low at this date; it is not vital to my immediate subject. Perhaps, though, it is worth pointing out that if the actors were elevated to any great distance from the Orchestra, their terror at the approach of ‘drunks’ becomes a little ludicrous.

^{page 17 note 6} Cairo Fragment, 195 sqq.

^{page 17 note 7} Cp. Sächs. Ges. der Wiss., Leipzig, , LX(1908), 209ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 17 note 8} 71 ff. The end of Act I. If we suppose with Allinson that this is the end of Act II, and that Act I finishes with Agnoia's speech, how is it that there is no trace of a XOPOT between the first and second acts, where the text is preserved complete? See Loeb Menander, ed. F. G. Allinson.

^{page 18 note 1} Samia, 271.

^{page 18 note 2} The Fragmenta Florentines, assigned to Menander with certainty by Vitelli, in 1913 (Pap. gr. e lat. II, 1913, p. 27)Google Scholar, and later identified as a portion of the Epiclerusby Herzog, (cp. Hermes, 1916, p. 315ff.)Google Scholar. For a more recent discussion see Jensen, Menandri Reliquiae, and also Van Leeuwen, Men. Rell. Körte argues against its assignation to the Epiclerusin his Menandros(p. 15), but unconvincingly.

^{page 18 note 3} Fragm. Florent. 38–45 ap. Jensen and Van Leeuwen.

^{page 18 note 4} Hermes, 1908.

^{page 18 note 5} Hermes, 1908.

^{page 18 note 6} Hermes, 1908.

^{page 18 note 7} Periceir. 54–6.

^{page 19 note 1} Epitrep.32. Vide supra.

^{page 19 note 2} Epitrep. 195 ff. Vide supra.

^{page 19 note 3} Cairo Fragm. 214.

^{page 19 note 4} Samia, 269.

^{page 19 note 5} Samia, 331: σ⋯ γáρ τοι περιμένσ' οὗτοι π⋯λαι.

^{page 19 note 6} I am thinking especially of Bethe, op. cit.

^{page 19 note 7} Periceiromenê, 234.

^{page 20 note 1} Epitrep. 217 s. (cp. Bethe, op. cit. for criticism on the same lines):

θεῖον δ⋯ μῖσος μέ τι.

οὐκέτι μ' ⋯ᾷ γ⋯ρ οὐδ⋯ κατακεῖσθαι, τάλαν,

παρ' αὑτóѵ, ⋯λλ⋯ ϰωρ⋯ς.

^{page 20 note 2} Hermes, 1908, p . 308. Kock, 107. The fragment runs:

κα⋯ γ⋯ρ ⋯π⋯ κ⋯μον …; ⋯νθρώπων ⋯ρ⋯

πλ⋯θος προσιόν, ὡς τ⋯ν καλ⋯ν τε κ⋯уαθ⋯ν

⋯νθάδε συνόντων μ⋯ νένοιτό μοι μόνῳ

νὐκτωρ ⋯παντ⋯σαι καλ⋯ς πεπραуόσιν

ὑμῖν περ⋯ τ⋯ν βαλλισμ⋯ν οὐ у⋯ρ ἂν ποτε

θοἰμ⋯τιον ⋯πενένκαιμι μ⋯ ν⋯σας πτέρα.

Leo also finds a κ⋯μος buried in the BacchidesPlautus, 104 ff. (Hermes, 1911):

BACCHIS I.Aqua calet: eamus hinc intro ut laves.

Nam uti navi vecta es, credo timida es.

BACCHIS II. Aliquantum, soror. Simul huic nescio cui, turban qui hue it, decedamus.

BACCHIS I. Sequere hac igitur me intro in lectum ut sedes lassitudinem.

^{page 20 note 3} The XOPOT of the Ghor⋯n Papyri should perhaps be mentioned. But the contexts in which it occurs (Demianczuk, , Suppl. Comicum, PP. 100, 109)Google Scholarare too fragmentary to allow of any estimation of its significance.

^{page 20 note 4} Bethe, op. cit., wishes to interpret it as ‘are already feasting,’ as I mentioned above. He supports this by the fact that Charisius is drunk a hundred lines later; but that proves nothing at a11. The interval between the beginning of the act and 1. 306 gives charisius ample time for that.

^{page 20 note 5} Cp. 213.

^{page 20 note 6} class. phil., 1912. Cp. supr. P. 15, note 6.

^{page 21 note 1} Op. cit.

^{page 21 note 2} Cp. Mcnandri sex fabularum rell., Halle, , 1908Google Scholar. Also Hermes, 1909, pp. 260, 633.

^{page 21 note 3} Miles, 77, 1399.

^{page 21 note 4} Pseudolus, Act I, Sc. II.

^{page 21 note 5} 780 ff.

^{page 22 note 1} The phrases are Bethe's.

^{page 22 note 2} Kock, 4.

^{page 22 note 3} See Bethe, , Prolegomena, p. 248Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 1} Isocrates, , Areopagiticus, 53Google Scholar: Antiphanes, , Soldier, Kock, , 204Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 2} Leplines, 23.

^{page 23 note 3} Ath. Pol. 56, I.G.II. Suppl. 971.

^{page 23 note 4} I.G.IL 1289, which runs as follows:

⋯ δ⋯μος ⋯ϰορήуει ⋯π' 'Αναξικρ⋯τους ἂρϰοντος

⋯уωνοθέτης Εενοκλ⋯ς Εεινίδος Σϕήττιος

ποιητ⋯ς τραуῳδίας ϕανόστρατος 'Ηρακλείδον Αλικαρνάσσευς

ποιητ⋯ς κωμῳδίας Κάλλιππος Καλλίου Σουνιεύς See also Ferguson, , Hsllenistic A them, p. 55ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 23 note 5} Dittenberger, , Sylloge II. 424. 42 ff. and II. 690Google Scholar. See the comments of Pomtow on both inscriptions ad loc. and cp. I.G.XI. II. 108 and 161. A. 83.

^{page 23 note 6} It is very unsafe to draw parallels between Plays of the New Comedy and the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes on the grounds of similarity of title. Thus we have among Menander's fragments a Κωνειαόμεναι, IIωλούμενοι, Συναριστ⋯σαι Κυβέρνηται. But they may have resembled Plautus' Captivi, and have given no prominence to the chorus at all.

^{page 23 note 7} ‘Εϕημ’ Αρϰ. 1883, 162–3.