which only the three first feet are vitious : Εξειμι· πατέρα δέ γέ μοι δὸς εἰσιδεῖν. οὐκ ἂν τύχοις. Another reading is proposed in Barnes's note, which is, if possible, still more happy than than that which is exhibited in his text. Ἔξειμι χθονός· πατέρα δέ μοι δὸς ἰδεῖν. οὐκ ἂν τύχοις.

V. 209. Εξεπόνασεν. Forte, ἐξεπόνασσεν. Μ. Quid voluerit Marklandus, nescio. G. Read ἐξεπόνησεν. In the Doric of the tragedies εκπονεῖν cannot make έξεπόνασεν in the aorist.

V. 225. Πυρρότριχας, μονόχαλα δ' ὑπὸ σφυρὰ Ποικιλοδέρμονας, οἷς παρε πάλλετο Πηλείδας ξὺν ὅπλοισι παρ' ἄντυγα. These are three tetrameter dactylic verses, which in the editions are otherwise divided. The common reading is Πηλείδας σὺν ὅπλοις. The resolution of the diphthong is lawful in a choral song. So Οἰνεΐδας Rhes. 906. Read also Ερεχθείδαι Med. 824.

V. 349. Ταῦτα μέν σε πρῶτ ̓ ἐπῆλθον, ἵνα σε πρῶτ ̓ εὕρω κακόν. Scribendum opinor, εὗρον κακὸν, et ita Reiskius. Μ. If Markland had recollected his own emendation of Suppl. 1211, he would have removed all doubt, if any doubt can exist, of the propriety of reading gov or någov.

ν. 407. Ξυνσωφρονεῖν σοι βούλομ', ἀλλ ̓ οὐ ξυννοσεῖν. Συσσωφρονεῖν γὰρ οὐχι συννοσεῖν ἔφυν Plutarch. p. 64. C. et ita omnimo legendum. PORSON. This is one of the many passages in these three tragedies, in which the accidental assistance of Plutarch or Stobæus has prevented the true reading from being irrecoverably lost. We regret that Plutarch has not also quoted Iph. Τaur. 678. Δόξω δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖσι, πολλοὶ γὰρ κακοὶ, Προδούς σε, σώζεσθ' αὐτὸς εἰς οἴκους μόνος. These two passages, together with Iph. Aul. 1141, of which we shall propose a correction in its proper place, are, we believe, the only instances of the elision of the diphthong AI which occur in these plays.

V. 417. Μήτηρ δ' ὁμαρτεῖ, σῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας δέμας, Καὶ παῖς Ὀρέστης. We should prefer σε Κλυταιμνήστρα δάμαρ. So Iph. Taur. 22. Παιδ' οὖν ἐν οἴκοις σὴ Κλυταιμνήστρα δάμαρ Τίκτει.

1.508. Ταραχή γ ̓ ἀδελφῶν τις δι ̓ ἔρωτα γίγνεται, Πλεονεξίαν τε δωμάτων. ἀπέπτυσα Τοιάνδε συγγένειαν ἀλλήλων πικράν. The anapest may be expelled by reading, Ταραχή γ' ἀδελφῶν διά τ' ἔρωτα γίγνεται. This emendation is so obvious, that we suspect that Heath, Markland, and others, were prevented from proposing it, by a doubt whether διά τ' ἔρωτα was equivalent to δι' ἔρωτά τε. A few examples will remove all doubt on the subject. Suppl. 383. Ελθὼν δ' ὑπές τ' Ασωπὸν, Ἰσμηνοῦ θ ̓ ὕδωρ. Ιοη. 1283. Ὑπέρ τ' ἐμαυτοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ θ ̓, ἵν' ἔσταμεν. Herc. 477. Κήδη ξυνάψων, ἐκ τ ̓ ̓Αθηναίων χθονός, Σπαρτῆς τε, Θηβῶν θ'. So also Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 253, Aj. 53, 492, Phil. 1294, El. 599, &c. Sometimes, instead of τε, the second conjunction is καί. So Aristoph. Vesp. 126. Ὁ δ' ἐξεδίδρασκε διά τε τῶν ὑδροῤῥοῶν, Καὶ τῶν ὀπῶν. These examples are sufficient to defend the common reading of Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 541, "Ανευ τε πλήθους καὶ φίλων, where Mr. Elmsley reads ̓́Ανευ γε.

V. 638. ̓Αλλ ̓, ὦ τέκνον, χρή. φιλοπάτωρ δ ̓ ἀεί ποτ ̓ εἶ Μάλιστα παίδων τῶνδ ̓, ὅσους ἐγὼ 'τεκον. Read παίδων τοῦδ'. Mr. Porson properly attributes these two verses to Clytemnestra. He also rejects as spurious γν. 630, 635, 636, 637, and places 633 and 634 before 631 and 632. V. 664. Μακρὰν απαίρεις, ὦ πάτερ, λιπὼν ἐμέ; Omnes codd. μακράν γ

ἀπαίρει;.

ἀπαίρεις. Recte. M. 1ί μακράν γ' απαίρεις is right, as we believe it to be, the note of interrogation is wrong.

V. 667. ΑΓ. Ἔτ ̓ ἔστι καὶ σοὶ πλοῦς, ἵνα μνήσει πατρός. ΙΦ. Ξὺν μητρὶ πλεύσασ', ἢ μόνῳ πορεύσομαι; Forte πλεύσουσ', navigatura: quia de re futura loquitur. M. The future of πλέω is not πλεύσω, but πλεύσομαι οι πλευσοῦμαι. Neither is the future participle proper on the present occasion. It should be, ξὺν μητρὶ πλέουσ', if the metre would admit that reading. There is, however, nothing wrong in the common reading, except the punctuation. Read, Ξὺν μητρὶ πλεύσασ' (μνήσομαι πατρὸς scili cet); η μόνη πορεύσομαι; Here the preterite participle is proper, as the recollection of her father is supposed to come after, not during, the voyage.

V.700. Του δ' Αἰάκου παῖς τίς κατέσχε δώματα. Read, Τὰ δ ̓ Αἰάκου. This is a very common error.

V. 701. ΑΓ. Πηλεύς· ὁ Πηλεὺς δ' ἔσχε Νηρέως κόρην. ΚΛ. Θεοῦ διδόντος, * βίᾳ θεῶν λαβών ; νεὶ θεοῦ, ut θεοῦ διδόντος. Per θεοῦ intelligit Nerea. M. Θεόν legendum. Θεῶν est absurdum, θεοῦ tautologum. Porson. We do not perceive the absurdity of βίᾳ θεῶν, against the will of the gods, an expression of very frequent occurrence in the tragedies. Read: Τίνος διδόντος; ἢ βία θεῶν λαβών ; Θεοῦ is an interlineary gloss. Agamemnon answers, Ζεὺς ἐγγύησε, καί δίδωσ ̓ ὁ κύριος. A double answer to a double question.

V. 733. ΑΓ. Εγὼ παρέξω φῶς, ὃ νυμφίοις πρέπει. ΚΛ. Οὐχ ὁ νόμος οὗτος, καί σὺ δὲ φαῦλ ̓ ἡγῆ ταδε. Musgrave reads, κἂν σὺ φαῦλ ̓ ἡγῆ τάδε, etiamsi tu hæc nihili facias. As, however, two MSS. omit καὶ, we venture to propose Οὐχ ὁ νόμος οὗτος. σὺ δὲ τί φαῦλ ̓ ἡγεῖ τάδε; Why do you consider these things as of little importance?

V. 740. Ελθὼν δὲ, τἄξω πρᾶσσε, τῶν δόμοις δ ̓ ἐγώ, Α χρὴ παρεῖναι νυμφίοισι παρθένοις. Markland proposes, ἐλθὼν σὺ τἄξω πρᾶσσι. The alteration is not violent, but totally unnecessary. These lines ought to be printed as follows: Ελθὼν δὲ, τάξω πρᾶσσε (ταν δόμοις δ' ἐγὼ) Α χρὴ παρεῖναι νυμφίοισι παρθένοις. The tragedies are full of parentheses of this kind, in which the speaker compares his own situation or occupation with that of the person of whom he is speaking, or vice versa. Such are δυστάλας δ' ἐγὼ γέρων Suppl. 1034, Μενέλεως δ' ἐν ἀνδράσιν Iph. Αul. 944, ἐγὼ δὲ δυσσεβῆ καί δυστυχῆ Iph. Taur. 694. We wish that more attention were generally paid to the punctuation of such passages.

V. 805. οὕτω δεινὸς ἐμπέπτωκ ̓ ἔρως Τῆσδε στρατείας Ελλάδ', οὐκ ἄνευ θεῶν. Although ἐμπίπτειν commonly governs the dative case, we recollect one passage, which, if the common reading is correct, will justify us in considering Ελλάδ' as the accusative. Soph. Cd. Col. 942. Οὐδείς ποτ' αὐτοὺς τῶν ἐμῶν ἂν ἐμπέσοι Ζῆλος ξυναίμων. Brunck reads αὐτοῖς, with the following note: Aldus et codd. mendose αὐτούς. The emendation, which is borrowed without acknowledgment from Heath, is perhaps unnecessary. Many verbs govern two different cases without any difference of signification. Hec. 587. Δεινόν τι πῆμα Πριαμίδαις ἐπέζεσε, Πόλει τε τήμη. Iph. Taur. 997. Δεινή τις ὀργὴ δαιμόνων ἐπέζεσε Τὸ Ταντάλειον σπέρμα.

V. 900. Οὐκ ἐπαιδεσθήσομαί γε προσπεσεῖν τὸ σὸν γόνυ, Θνητὸς ἐκ θεᾶς γεγῶτα. τί γὰρ ἐγὼ σεμνύνομαι; Non male scriberetur, Οὐκ ἐπαιδεσθήσομαι

γὼ

ἐγὼ προσπεσεῖν. Μ. So. ν. 1396. Εμποδὼν γενήσομαι γὼ θνητὸς οὖσα τῇ θεῷ ; Perhaps, however, the cominon reading is right. In the next verse, Makland reads γεγῶτος on the authority of three MSS., in which γεγῶτος is exhibited as a various reading. We prefer the common reading, in defence of which we subjoin two examples of the same construction. I. Æsch. Prom. 144. Λεύσσω, Προμηθεῦ· φοβερὰ δ ̓ ἐμοῖσιν όσσοις ομίχλα Προσηξε πλήρης δακρύων Σὺν δέμας εἰσιδούσα. II. Soph. Ant. 1001. ̓Αγιώτ ἀκούω φθόγγον ὀρνίθων, κακῷ Κλάζοντας οἴστρῳ καὶ βεβαρβαρωμένῳ, καὶ σπῶντας ἐν χηλαῖσιν ἀλλήλους φοναῖς.

V. 1014. Ψυχρὰ μὲν ἐλπίς. τί δὲ χρή με δρᾶν, φράσον. V. 1365. Δηλαδὴ ξανθῆς ἐθείρης. ἐμὲ δὲ τί χρὴ δρᾶν τότε. In both of these verses τί occupies the place of a long syllable. In the former, Markland reads or δὲ χρή: in the latter, Mr. Gaisford reads ἐμὲ δὲ χρὴ τί δρᾶν τότε. We disapprove of neither emendation, but if it were possible, we could wish to apply the same correction to both verses, as the fault of both is the

same.

V. 1141. Πάντ' οἶδα, καὶ πέπυσμ ̓, ἃ σύ γε μέλλεις με δρᾶν. The elision of the diphthong may be avoided by reading, Πάντ ̓ οἶδα, καὶ πεπύσμεθα, ἃ σὺ μέλλεις με δρῶν. A similar change of number occurs immediately afterwards, v. 1146. "Ακουε δή νυν' ἀνακαλύψω γὰρ λόγους, Κοὐκέτι παρωδοῖς χρησόμεσθ ̓ αἰνίγμασι. So also v. 516. Λάθοιμι τοῦτ ̓ ἂν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκεῖν οὐ λήσομεν (οὐ λήσομαι Aldus). V. 654. Ασύνετα * νυν ἐροῦμεν, εἰ σέ γ' εὐφρανῶ. V. 928. Καὶ τοῖς ̓Ατρείδαις, ἣν μὲν ἡγῶνται καλῶς, Πεισόμεθ'. ὅταν δὲ μὴ καλῶς, οὐ πείσομαι (οὐ πεισόμεθα Aldus).

V. 1142. Αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ σιγᾶν, ὁμολογοῦντός ἐστί σου, Καὶ τὸ στενάζειν πολλά μὴ κάμνης λέγων. It is remarkable that the solecism μὴ κάμνης instead of μὴ κάμνε οι μὴ κάμης, should have escaped the observation of every edi

tor.

V. 1149. Εγημες ἄκουσάν με, κἄλαβες βίᾳ. Nescio quid sit ἔχημες quod tamen habent omnes quas vidi editiones. Scribo, "Εγημας. Μ. Ἔγημες arose from κάλαβες. Aldus reads in v. 895 of the Medea, Εξέλθατ', ἀσπάσασθε, καὶ προσείπατε. In the play now before us, all the MSS. read, v. 917, Δεινὸν τό τίκτειν, καὶ φέρειν (φέρει vulgo) φίλτρον μέγα. Markland asks, Num voluerunt pipor? These varieties mean nothing, nor is any plausible reading to be extracted from them.

V. 1164. Τίκτω δ ̓ ἐπὶ τρισὶ παρθένοισι παῖδά σοι Τόνδ', ὧν μιᾶς σὺ τλημό νως μ ̓ ἀποστερεῖς. Is not τλήμονος the true reading?

V. 1171. "Αγ', ήν στρατεύσῃ, καταλιπών μ ̓ ἐν δώμασιν, Κἀκεῖ γενήσῃ διὰ μακρᾶς ἀπουσίας, Τίν ̓ ἐν δόμοις με καρδίαν ἕξειν δοκεῖς, Όταν θρόνους τῆσδ ̓ εἰσίδω πάντας κενοὺς, Κενοὺς δὲ παρθενῶνας; ἐπὶ δὲ δακρύοις Μόνη κάθημαι, τήνδε θρηνη

Mr. Gaisford reads αξύνετα. After a short vowel, we prefer σὺν το ξύν, except where ξυγ is necessary to the metre. Mr. Porson says, in his note on Med. 11, Hanc regulam mihi semel ipse statui, ut živ semper pro ziv scriberem, ubi per metrum et numeros liceret. In the Medea, Mr. Porson has exhibited av at least three times where the verse would have admitted the other form. V. 2. Κόλχων ἐς αἶαν, κυανέας Συμπληγάδας. V. 13. Αὐτή τε πάντα συμφέρουσ ̓ Ἰάσονι. V. 911. Πολλὴν ἔθηκε σὺν θεοῖς προμηθίαν. Συμπληγάδας is probably an oversight, but in the other two verses we conceive ùy to be retained intentionally. In the second verse of the Orestes, which, in all the editions is printed as follows, Οὐδὲ πάθος, οὐδὲ ξυμφορὰ θεήλατος, Mr. Porson has adopted οὐδὲ συμφορὰ, the reading of Lucian, Stobaeus, and the majority of the MSS.

δοῦσ

δοῦσ ̓ ἀεί. Vor ἣν et sensus postulant, opinor, στρατεύσης, με γένηση, modi subjunctivi, secundam personam. Μ. Γινήση is not the subjunctive, but the future. Read εἰ στρατεύσει-γενήσει. Στρατεύομαι occurs in v. 435 of the Phoenisse, and ἐστρατευόμην in v. 967 of the play now before us. This passage, as it is commonly printed, contains another solecism besides ην—γενήση. Read μόνη καθῶμαι in the last line, and transfer the mark of interrogation after παρθενώνας to the end of the passage. Compare Soph. El. 266.

V. 1185. Θύσεις δὲ τὴν παῖδ'. ἔνθα τίνας εὐχὰς ἐρεῖς; Τί σοι κατεύξει τάγαθὸν, σφάζων τέκνον ; Read, Θύσας δὲ σὴν παῖδ', εἶτα τίνας εὐχὰς ἐρεῖς; In v. 539 of the Supplices, Markland has properly changed νοσφίσεις into νοσφίσας. In the passage before us, θύσας is to be interpreted ἐὰν θύσης. 5ο ν. 124. Καὶ πῶς ̓Αχιλεὺς, λέκτρων ἀπλακών, Οὐ μίγα φυσῶν θυμὸν ἐπαρι (vulgo ἐπαίρει) Σοὶ σῇ τ ̓ ἀλόχῳ; If any authority be required for altering τὴν παῖδ' into σὴν παῖδ', we may mention that in v. 134 of this play, the edition of Barnes exhibits τὴν παίδ' instead of σην παῖδ. We agree with Markland in considering this variation as an error of the press.

Γ. 1209. Πιθοῦ. τὸ γάρ τοι τέκνα συσσώζειν καλὸν, ̓Αγάμεμνον. οὐδεὶς πρὸς τάδ ̓ ἀντείποι βροτῶν. Demosthenes inseruisset äv. M. We add, neque omisisset Euripides. One MS. reads αντείπη, but the poet probably wrote ἀντερεῖ. So Hippol. 402. οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ βουλεύμασι. Alc. 618. Εσθλῆς γὰρ (οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ) καὶ σώφρονος Γυναικὸς ἡμάρτηκας.

γ. 1239. Ι, ἀλλὰ (ut saltcm) τοῦτο κατθανοῦσ ̓ ἔχω σέθεν Μνημεῖον, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πεισθῇς λόγοις. Mr. Hermann (ad Vigerum, n. 304), proposes ἂν μὴ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πεισθῇς λόγοις. He did not recollect Hippol. 1088. Δρα σω τάδ', εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πείσει λόγοις. Compare Asch. Prom. 1013.

V. 1205. Πλεῖν ὡς τάχιστα βαρβάρων ἐπὶ χθόνα, Παῦσαι το λέκτρων ἁρπαγὰς Ελληνικάς. By reading Ελληνικῶν, we may improve the sound of this verse, certainly without any injury to the sense. Lest our ob jection to unnecessary alterations of the text should be retorted against us, we wish the reader to know, that with respect to the termination of adjectives, the authority of the common copies of our poet's trage dies is absolutely null. In proof of this assertion, we will subjoin the Aldine reading of a few passages, which have been corrected by modern critics. Phœn. 30. Εθηκαν. ἡ δὲ τῶν ἐμῶν (τὸν ἐμὸν) ὠδίνων πόνου Μαστοῖς ὑφεῖτο. Ibid. 1633. "Ω πάτερ, ἐν οἴοις κείμεθ ̓ ἀθλίοις (άθλιοι) κακοῖς. Androm. 758. Οὐ μὴ γυναικῶν δειλῶν (δειλὸν) εἰσοίσεις λόγον. Suppl. 27. Μόνον (μόνῳ) τόδ' ἔργον προστιθεὶς ἐμῷ τέκνῳ. Ibid. 73. Στ ̓ ὦ ξυνωδοί κακοὶ (κακοῖς). Ibid. 658. παλαιᾶς (παλαιοὺς) Κεκροπίας οἰκήτορας. Ibid. 704. ἔκλινε γὰρ κέρας Τὸ λαιὸν ἡμῶν. δεξιὸν (δεξιοῦ) δ ̓ ἡσσώμενον, Φεύγει τὸ κείνων *. Ibid. 765. Επιψεν αὐτῶν (αὐτὸς) τῶν ταλαιπώρων σφαγάς; Ibid. 1163. Φίλον (Φίλας) ἄγαλμ' ὄψομαι σῆς (όψομαι σε ματρός. Iph. Αul. 1223. ἆρά σ ̓ ὦ τίκνον, Εὐδαίμονος (εὐδαίμον) ἀνδρὸς ἐν δόμοισιν ὄψομαι. In all these passages, and in a thousand more, the adjective has been corrupted by the vicinity of some other word. †

To the examples quoted in Markland's note, add Heracl. 234. Τὴν δ ̓ εὐγένειαν τῆς τύχης νικωμένην Νῦν δὴ μάλιστ' εἰσεῖδον. Esch. Theb. 520. Κούπω τις εἶδε ζῆνά του (vulgo που) νικώμενον.

Athen. p. 3, F. Ὁ δὲ πῖος Ιων, τραγαθίαν νικήσας Αθήνησιν, ἑκάστῳ τῶν ̓Αθηναίων ἔδωκε VOL. VII. NO. XIV.

HH

V. 1459.

V. 1459. Τίς μ' εἶσιν ἄξων, πρὶν σπαράξεσθαι κόμας; We suspect that πρὶν σπαράξεσθαι is a solecism. The usual construction is πρὶν γράψαι; instead of which the tragedians not unfrequently say πριν γράφειν, and sometimes πρὶν γεγραφέναι; * but never, we believe, πριν γράψειν. In these three plays, we find πρὶν δύναι Suppl. 468, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ν. 696, Iph. Aul. 971. πρὶν θανεῖν Iph. Taur. 102, 529, 774, πρὶν παλάξαι το 881, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ν. 989. In the present instance, as the middle form σπαράξασθαι seems to be improper, we must read πρὶν σπαράσσεσθαι.

V. 1477. Στέφια περίβολα δίδοτε, φέρετε. πλόκαμος ὅδε καταστέψει». The three last words are properly explained by Markland. Here is my hair to crown. So Androm. 412. Ιδού, προλείπω βωμόν. ἥδε χειρία Σφάζειν, φονεύειν, δεῖν, ἀπαρτῆσαι δέρην. So also Hippol. 293, if we retain the common reading, which ought not to be hastily rejected : Κεἰ μὲν νοσεῖς τι · τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων κακῶν, Γυναῖκες αἵδε συγκαθιστάναι νόσον.

V. 1502. Ἔθρεψας Ελλάδι μέγα φάος, Θανοῦσα δ ̓ οὐκ ἀναίνομαι. These are two of five verses, four of which are undoubtedly dimeter iambics. In order to reduce the fifth to the same measure, we ought to read, Ἔθρεψας (or perhaps έθρεψαθ') Ελλάδι με φάος. If this is the true read ing, the enclitics must be considered as adhering to the preceding word. Another instance of the same licence appears in the Helena, ν. 707. Μενέλαε, καμὸι πρόσδοτέ τι τῆς ἡδονῆς. Here, however, we do not hesitate to read, κἀμοὶ προσδοτέα τῆς ἡδονῆς. In a fragment of Aristophanes, preserved by Athenaus (p. 95, F), we are inclined to read with Brunck : Και μήν, τὸ δεῖν, ἀκροκώλιά γε σοι τέτταρα Ηψησα τακερά. Mr. Porson reads (ad Or. 79) ἀκροκώλι, ἅ γε σοι τέτταρα.

V. 5.

Χιον κεράμειον. Schweighaeuser, in his text, reads Χίου κεράμιον, a measure of Chian wine, but in his notes appears inclined to retain Xig. That xiv is the true reading, will appear beyond all doubt from the following passages of Aristophanes : Lys. 196. Μηλοσφαγοῦσες Θασίον οίνου σταμνίου. Eccl. 1118. πολὺ δὲ ὑπερπέπαικεν αὖ Τούτων ἁπάντων τὰ Θάσι αμφορείδια. Vesp. 838. Τροφαλίδα τυροῦ Σικελικὴν κατεδήδοκε,

Med, 78. ̓Απωλόμεσθ' ἄρ', εἰ κακὸν προσοίσομεν Νέον παλαιῷ, πρὶν τόδ' ἐξηντληκέναι. + Sec Dawes, Misc. Crit. p. 211, ed. 1781. A distinction ought to be made between the tragic and the comic poets. When we have a proper opportunity, we will endeavour to demonstrate that Dawes's canon is not so strictly observed by the comic poets as is commonly imagined. With regard to the tragic poets, their practice may be conveniently described in the following canon: In tragic iambics, the second syllable of a wibrach or of a dactyl ought not to be either a monosyllable which is incapable of beginning a verse, or the lust syllable of a word. We apprehend that this rule is never transgressed by Eschylus or Sophocles. In this respect, as well as most others, the versification of Euripides is more licentious. In our observation on Suppl. 158, we have exhibited a few verses of this poet, in which the second syllable of a tribrach or dactyl is a monosyllable which cannot begin either a verse, or the second division of a verse which is divided by a perfect caesura. In a few other instances the first and sesond syllables of the tribrach or dactyl are joined together in a word of two syllables. Οι. 99. οψέ γε φρονεῖς εὖ, τότε λιποῦσ ̓ αἰσχρῶς δόμους.. Phoen. 404. Ποτὲ μὲν ἐπ ̓ ἦμαρ εἶχον, εἶτ ̓ οὐκ εἶχον ἄν. Suppl. 602. Διὰ δορὸς εἶπας, ἢ λόγων ξυναλλαγαῖς; Iph. Αul. 1142. Αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ σιγῶν ὁμολογοῦντός ἐστι σου. Ibid. 1164. Τίκτω δ ̓ ἐπὶ τρισὶ παρθένοισι παϊδά σου. Ihil. 1460. Εγω μετά γε σου. μὴ σύ γ'. οὐ καλῶς λέγεις. Markland conjectures, Εγωγε μετὰ σοῦ. Bacch. 938. Οταν παρὰ λόγον σώφρονας Βάκχας ἴδης. Ion. 931. Τί φής; τίνα λόγον Λοξίου κατηγορείς. We believe that we may safely venture to assert, that the surviving plays of Euripides will not furnish eight other verses similar to the eight foregoing. Verses of the following construction are also rare in the plays of Euripides, and do not

occur