^{page 52 note 1} In places the wording seems to be (no doubt unconsciously) echoed; this appears (to take a random stretch of 50 lines) from what is said on 417, 425, 430, 440, 456, and 462.

^{page 52 note 2} See now Skutsch, O. in Mnemosyne, xiii (1960), p. 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar, emending to bili (mentioned by Sedgwick) and discussing tibï, mihï.

^{page 53 note 1} Curiously the recurrence of the phrase conalusos (–um) geris (Amph. 341 and Rud. 1144), for what it is worth, has escaped Marx, and Kellermann, (Comm. Jenenses vii. 1 (1903), pp. 130 f.Google Scholar).

^{page 53 note 2} In spite of the similarity of wording in Livy xxvii. 51, 10, I cannot accept Enk's date of 207, after the battle of the Metaurus River; surely lines 188–9 imply a date after 202?

^{page 53 note 3} It is said that these Rhinthonica were ‘after-plays’ (⋯ξοδ⋯α); this must rest on a doubtful emendation of the puzzling ⋯ξωτικ⋯ in Johannes Lydus de Mag. 1. 40 (p. 41 Wünsch). For what his evidence is worth he mentions Rhinthonica after Atellana and before ‘tabernariae’ and ‘planipedariae’, which suggests scanty literary pretensions.

^{page 53 note 4} Last done by Bergk, T. in his Griech. Lit. iv (1887), 123.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 5} In Cratinus' Nemesis both Zeus and Nemesis seem to have come on the stage, and this should be recorded in note 2 on p. 3; the mythological burlesque in that play had, we are told, a satirical purpose, directed against Pericles and Aspasia.

^{page 53 note 6} Rh. Mus. xvi (1861), 472 f.Google Scholar (= Ges. Schriften, i. 440).