Other ‘lingering’ messengers like the Old Servant in Hel. 597–624 + 700–60 (with Kannicht on 597–760) or the Argive in E. Suppl. 634–777 (Strohm 269 with nn. 3, 4) do not play a dramatic role either. The Pedagogue in S. El. 660–803 is a special case of an established character delivering a ‘fake message’.
According to Arist. Poet. 1455a26–9, a play by Carcinus II was ‘hissed off’ the stage because of some contradiction in a character’s movements. Cf. TrGF I, 211–12.
Hsch. δ 2622 Latte 
ϕοβοῦ, which in view of the wrongly transmitted δυσοίζου for δυσοίζοντος (Schmidt, δυσοίζυος vel δυσοιζο<μέν>ου Latte) in the preceding lemma may conceal a reference to our line, is of little evidential value, since the explanation (cf. Hsch. δ 2620 Latte) could also have been deduced from Ag. 1316 οὔτοι δυσοίζω θάμνον ὡς ὄρνις ϕόβῳ (724n.). Moreover, the other glosses on the active in Hsch. δ 2619, 2620, 2621 and ε 537 Latte (δυσχεραίνω, ὑπονοέω, ὑποπτεύω, οἰωνίζομαι) seem to betray confusion with the stem of οἴομαι (GEW, DELG s.v.).
Pers. 310 νικώμενοι κύρισσον ἰσχυρὰν χθόνα and 490–1 ἔνθα δὴ πλεῖστοι θάνον / δίψῃ τε 
τ᾽ would testify to the contrary only if, like Diggle in the case of prodelision after -ει and -αι (Euripidea, 56 n. 7, 61), we strictly applied the rule of Lautensach (Augment, 166–8) and Page (on Med. 1141) that in tragic messenger speeches the syllabic augment is hardly ever omitted save at the beginning of a line. But no recent editor of Aeschylus, not even Page himself, has done so.
With an irregular synizesis in the fifth ‘foot’ of the iambic trimeter (J. M. Descroix, Le trimètre iambique, Macon 1931, 32–3).
The only example of this idiom in Aeschylus would seem to be A. fr. 78a.67 (Theoroi?) ὡς οὐδέ.ν 
σιδηρῖτι[ν 
-].
Here, if nowhere else, the audience may have noticed that not all the sentries should have abandoned their posts (cf. Introduction, 39–40). That the Thracians were extremely careless about their own safety (762–9n.) never becomes an issue.
Ritchie (50) follows H. L. Schrader (De notatione critica a veteribus grammaticis in poeticis scaenicis adhibita, diss. Bonn 1864, 28–9) in supposing that ΣV Rh. 41 (II 330.6–7 Schwartz = 82 Merro) τὸ χ̄ ὅτι συνθέτως ἀναγινώσκεται (sc. πυραίθει) καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν Εὐριπίδειος ὁ στίχος was originally composed for 823 (cf. Introduction, 23 with n. 7).
Call. Aet. fr. 24.3 Harder and Epigr. 34.1 Pf. (ὦνα for Heracles) violate the rule no more than the mock invocation of Cleonymus at Ar. Eq. 1298.
Mentioned last in 863–5. Retrospectively, we will understand that for the Trojans his disappearance is never solved.
On the elision of third-person-singular -ε before ἄν see Diggle, Studies, 100, 120 and Euripidea, 109 n. 61, 197.
Blass conjectured π[λημμελου]μένων in fr. com. adesp. 1006.8 PCG and Kannicht [πλημ]μελῆ in E. fr. 953m.37–8.
Liapis (on 863–5) questions this usage by reference to the wrong grammatical category (i.e. subordinate clauses dependent on a main verb in the past).
Ai. 792 
οἶδα τὴν σὴν 
(of Tecmessa) is different in that it does not pick up 
… 
at 790, and Hipp. 113 
σὴν δὲ Κύπριν 
λέγω, though falling into the same category, rather means ‘Cypris whom you worship as I do not’ (Dawe, STS III, 107). At A. fr. 14 κἄγωγε 
σὰς 
τε καὶ 
(cited with all the other examples by Wilkins on Hcld. 284) the context is again unclear.
G. Norwood (Appendix to Porter’s Rhesus, 91–2), followed by Kovacs, already saw these problems, but his interpretation, ‘… For ’tis no tongue, as thy taunts aver, that points at thee’ (upon which the Charioteer would draw his sword and attack Hector), reads too much stagecraft into a few words and does not properly address the second objection. Moreover, it is hard to picture the severely wounded Thracian engaged in such vigorous action, and it would appear from 792–3 that he never carried an offensive weapon.
Contrast Xen. An. 2.3.2 εἶπε τοῖς προϕύλαξι κελεύειν τοὺς κήρυκας περιμένειν (wrongly cited by Feickert in support of the paradosis at 881), where κελεύειν is essential to both sense and syntax.
Similarly Med. 1317–22. The beginning of Dionysus’ epiphany in Bacchae is lost in the lacuna at 1329–30, and the same applies to IA fr. (i) Diggle.
Actual allusions to flight are made only in Andr. 1228–9, E. El. 1233–6 and almost certainly HF 872 στεῖχ᾽ ἐς Οὔλυμπον πεδαίρουσ᾽, 
, γενναῖον πόδα (cf. D. J. Mastronarde, Cl. Ant. 9 [1990], 268–9 with n. 63). The last verse suffices to refute sceptics like Barrett (on Hipp. 1283 [p. 396 n. 1]) and Taplin (Stagecraft, 445), who out of undue desire to ban the crane from fifth-century tragedy are tempted to regard Andr. 1226–30 and E. El. 1233–7, or even all announcements except Rh. 885–9, as interpolations.
That this was the usual procedure is primarily shown by Andr. 1229–30 τῶν ἱπποβοτῶν / Φθίας πεδίων ἐπιβαίνει. Still actors could deliver a considerable amount of spoken lines from the mechane (e.g. Trygaeus in Ar. Pax 82–179, perhaps Iris in Ar. Av. 1202–59). Cf. D. J. Mastronarde, Cl. Ant. 9 (1990), 263, 269 (on alighting), 278 n. 95. We do not know how the parodos of Prometheus Bound was staged (Introduction, 41–2 with n. 78).
In accordance with this, West (CQ n.s. 50 [2000], 343 = Hellenica II, 234–5) thinks that at the end of A. Nereids (which he puts third in the Achilles-trilogy) Achilles was left in Thetis’ care to be transported to the Island of the Blessed.
There may be a similar corruption in Cho. 616–18 Κρητικοῖς / χρυσεοδμήτοισιν ὅρ- / μοις πιθήσασα (M: χρυσεοκμήτοισιν Musgrave), but see Garvie on 615–18.
As this is followed by an anapaestic entrance announcement for Thetis (cf. 882–9, 886–8nn.), we get in a way the reverse pattern to that displayed in Rhesus.
Polymestor’s astrophon (Hec. 1056–84, 1088–1106), the second surviving one after Andr. 103–16, is also still divided and concluded by iambics from the coryphaeus (Ritchie 339–40, who also refers to Io’s more complex song in PV 561–612; cf. Griffith, Authenticity of PV, 119–20).
Cf. Andr. 103–116 (prepared for in 91–5), IA 1475–99 and in comedy Ar. Ach. 263–79, Lys. 1279–90, Ran. 1331–63, Eccl. 893–9 (all ‘announced’).
If this is correct, it is an argument against adopting Housman’s δόλοις in Phil. 608, with Pearson, Lloyd-Jones & Wilson and Diggle (in P. J. Finglass et al. [eds.], Hesperos: Studies … Presented to M. L. West … , Oxford 2007, 157–8), unless the corruption is very early or happened in our poet’s mind.
With Willink’s division (cf. Diggle, Euripidea, 361, Mastronarde on 1581 [p. 561]). The only other cases are Tr. 648 ~ 656, following a ‘cyrenaic’, and parodically Ar. Av. 1411, 1415 (after a ‘greater asclepiad’, gl2c), where, as in Alc. 460 ~ 470 and Med. 650 ~ 659, analysis as 
is also possible.
The sense ‘innate’ seems to be late and very rare: [Longin.] De Subl. 8.1 ἀλλ᾽ αἱ μὲν 
and presumably Philo Iud. De Cherub. 50. But it remains tempting also to see the Muse’s inherent gift for song evoked in ἰαλέμῳ αὐθιγενεῖ.
The episode has falsely been attributed to the Cypria (West, Epic Cycle, 103–4, 184–5). It is first attested in a fifth-century painting by Polygnotus (Paus. 1.22.6) and was dramatised in Euripides’ Skyrioi.
Il. 11.328–34 recounts the fall of Amphius and Adrestus, whose prophet father Merops had foreseen their death at Troy and tried to retain them. The motif is varied at Il. 5.148–51 (a dream-interpreter, Eurydamas, fails to predict his sons’ fate) and Il. 13.663–72 (Euchenor, son of the Corinthian seer Polyïdus, is given the choice between dying of a disease at home or falling in the Trojan war, and chooses the latter).
Except for an undated Romano-Syrian verse-inscription: EG 896 (= IGRom III 1124, GE 26).1–2 Ἄμϕω, 
καὶ ἀγλαόπαις 
/ Τιβέριος, ὃς Μαρκελλῖνον 
ἔξοχ<ον> ἀνδρῶν. The latest edition (SGO IV 22/22/01) reads ἀριστοτόκος, ‘father of a splendid son’ (cf. Opp. Cyn. 3.62), which entails taking ἀγλαόπαις in the unnatural sense ‘excellent son’ and puts the relative clause rather out of sequence.
E. fr. 228.3–4 (Archelaus) ἐκ μελαμβρότοιο … / 
γῆς (3ia) is suspect. See A. Harder, Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos. Introduction, Text and Commentary, Leiden 1985, 182, 185–6 and J. S. Scullion, in D. Cairns – V. J. Liapis (eds.), Dionysalexandros. Essays … in Honour of Alexander F. Garvie, Swansea 2006, 190–1 (with full references).
Contrast Od. 11.435–9 (with Heubeck on 435–43) and 14.68–71 in the light of her more sympathetic portrayals in 4.120–305 (though see S. R. West on 120 ff., 242 ff.), 15.56–181 and e.g. Il. 3.121–244, 383–447.
This last solution is favoured by Diggle (apparatus) and Willink (above), who still prefers to explain 
as a gloss. Jackson suggested the more complicated process of misreading and faulty augmentation of 
.
For ὑπ(ὸ) 
cf. Il. 2.216, 249, 492, 673, 23.297, ‘Hes.’ fr. 136.8 M.–W., Ag. 986, Or. 648. In fact both Paley and Liapis state that κατὰ Τροίας explained the MSS’ 
, although in that case the preposition with genitive (‘against’) would make no sense.
At Pers. 925–7 
γὰρ 
ϕῶτες, / … / 
ἐξέϕθινται, Franz’ 
τις for the meaningless γὰρ ϕύστις (fere ΣΩ [ϕύσις HD]) is palmary.
My division of parts differs slightly from that of Fenik and Bond.
Radt on A. fr. 376a (TrGF III, 430) suspects that ‘Aeschylus’ is the scholiast’s error for ‘Sophocles’, and the story went according to the latter’s Thamyras.
Nothing can be ascertained from Antiph. fr. 104 PCG (Thamyras) καὶ σοῦ γ᾽ ἐπώνυμός 
ἐγχέλεις κεκτημένος, which is in any case likely to postdate Rhesus.
The second verse is irretrievably corrupt (cf. Radt’s apparatus). πρῶν᾽ is part of Mekler’s solution. V gives πρῶνες, whence Rabe wrote ἀργυρήλατοι.
This may be an alternative version of E. Suppl. 903 (Wilamowitz, Hermes 11 [1876], 303 = KS I, 199) or a parody of a Euripidean line (Kannicht–Snell, TrGF II, 97).
His argument against the MSS text is wrong, since κεῖνος can precede its noun without article. In tragedy cf. S. El. 201, 862, Ant. 1025.
Il. 2.599 αἳ δὲ χολωσάμεναι πηρὸν θέσαν need not refer to mutilation of the eyes (ΣA Il. 2.599 [I 311.67–312.71 Erbse] ~ Eust. 299.25–7, comparing Demodocus; cf. Kirk on Il. 2.599–600). One may add that, had Homer wished to be more specific, τυϕλὸν θέσαν (~ Il. 6.139 τυϕλὸν ἔθηκε) would have scanned no less.
These and similar myths (H. Herter, RE XVII.2 s.v. Nymphai, col. 1551) only reflect the common belief in nymphs as κουροτρόϕοι. Cf. Hes. Th. 346–8 τίκτε δὲ Κουράων (West: θυγατέρων codd.) ἱερὸν γένος, αἳ κατὰ γαῖαν / ἄνδρας κουρίζουσι σὺν Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι / καὶ ποταμοῖς (with West on 347), E. El. 625–6 (Nilsson, GGR I3, 258–9).
Since the Muse’s dilemma stems from a specific, however involuntary, act of her own, it matters little that our passage differs from the Euripidean examples in that παρθενείαν, which Jouan (54 n. 274) and Feickert (95) refer to the other Muses’ virginity by hendiadys, denotes ‘not the conduct of which the agent is or should be ashamed, but … the status/role which is the focus of the agent’s respect, disregard of which would be a source of disgrace’ (Cairns, Aidōs, 299 n. 124).
And as a race-horse’s name on a third-century AD curse-tablet from Roman Berytus (P. René Mouterde, SJ, MUB 15 [1930], 111, 121).
Cf. Chr. Pat. 1411–12 ἔδρας, ἔδρασας, μὴ δόκει λεληθέναι, / Πόντιε, δίκης ὄμμα 
, unless the author independently redivided the letters of the paradosis (Introduction, 53).
Of the references they quote see especially Richardson, Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 26–8 and E. Parisinou, The Light of the Gods. The Role of Light in Archaic and Classical Greek Cult, London 2000, 67–71.
Quoted by Musgrave (on 952) and Vater (Vindiciae, cxxvi) respectively.
Several other renderings of the paradosis have rightly been rejected by Liapis (above), among them, by implication (108 n. 281), ‘I will call in no other poet as witness (for Athena’s ingratitude)’ (R. Goossens, Euripide et Athènes, Brussels 1962, 287; cf. Feickert on 949). This is grammatically possible (LSJ s.v. 
II 3), but too matter-of fact after the Muse’s renewed lament in 948–9a.
The first two arguments would be irrelevant if the initial letters of the word had become illegible (Cobet VL2, 585; cf. Liapis on 950–1). And different ways of corruption may be assumed for different MSS.
A good case for the tragedians’ freedom to invent not only aetiologies but also (versions of existing) cults was made by J. S. Scullion, in D. Sansone et al. (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Fifth Century (ICS 24–5), Champaign (Ill.) 1999–2000, 217–33. See also F. M. Dunn, CB 76 (2000), 3–27.
On the text and interpretation of these virtually identical leaf-shaped tablets (P1 ~ P2), which formed part of a late-fourth-century female burial at Pelinna (Thessaly), see e.g. K. Tsantsanoglou – G. M. Parássoglou, Hellenika 38 (1987), 3–16 (ed. princ.) and F. Graf, in Ph. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphée: en l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt, Geneva 1991, 87–102 and in H. Carpenter – C. A. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca (NY) –London 1993, 239–58. The view of Rhesus as a prototypical 
goes back to Perdrizet (Cultes et mythes du Pangée, 16), refuted by Rempe, De Rheso Thracum heroe, 27–8. Cf. V. J. Liapis, CQ n.s. 57 (2007), 397 n. 83, who generally, however, seems sympathetic to such a reading (394–5, 397–8).
West and Sommerstein (most recently) read χλωρόν τε καὶ 
(Toup, after Hsch. 
553 Hansen–Cunningham χλωρόν τε καὶ βλέπον<τα>· ἀντὶ τοῦ ζῶντα), which would be lectio difficilior if the lemma was certainly taken from that line (see Fraenkel on Ag. 677 for moderate doubts).
The word does not recur until Procop. Arc. 12.14 (‘devils incarnate’, of Justinian and Theodora); cf. Suda α 2530 Adler. Hsch. 
1198 Latte 
cannot be traced to any specific source or period.
On E. fr. 228a.13–15 
Lloyd-Jones) 
/ 
(ἔ[σ]χεν Siegmann) 
/ 
see A. Harder, Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos. Introduction, Text and Commentary, Leiden 1985, 197–9 and Diggle, Euripidea, 325 n. 17.
A. fr. 39 
μασχάλαις, which seems to imitate a Homeric simile (Il. 13.198–202), may with due caution be added to the list (but note Mette’s ὥς τε, with Ruijgh, Te épique, 571, 993). At Tr. 699–700 
/ 
ξύλου read 
(Tyrrell; cf. Dawe, STS III, 91) or 
(Dawe3: ὡς εἰ iam Meineke), whereas Ba. 1066–7 
κυρτὸς τροχός / τόρνῳ γραϕόμενος 
ἕλκει 
is best emended by combining περιϕορὰν (ed. Hervag.2) with Reiske’s ἐλικοδρόμον (cf. J. Diggle, Eikasmos combining 
(ed. Hervag.2) with Reiske’s 
(cf. J. Diggle, Eikasmos 9 [1998], 48–9). S. fr. 840 μολυβδὶς 
κατέσπασεν cannot be adequately judged in terms of syntax.
Pindar’s version that the god shot Achilles in Paris’ guise (Pae. 6.79–86 [fr. 52f Sn.–M. = D6 Rutherford]; cf. Hyg. Fab. 107.1, 113.1) may have been invented for the occasion (Radt on Pi. Pae. 6.79).
See particularly Barrett on Hipp. 1462–6, Kannicht on Hel. 1688–92, Willink on Or. [1691–3] and, for a more sympathetic approach to these ‘codas’, D. H. Roberts, CQ n.s. 37 (1987), 51–56, F. M. Dunn, Tragedy’s End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama, New York – Oxford 1996, 14–25. In Sophocles at least El. 1508–10 (after [1505–7], an independent problem) and OT 1524–30 (4tr‸) should go for linguistic reasons (Finglass on S. El. [1508–10], [1508], [1509], [1510] and, for the latter, Dawe, STS I, 266–73 and P. J. Finglass, Philologus 153 [2009], 55–9, especially 59 n. 50, who traces the deletion to a lecture by the French scholar J. Boivin, delivered in 1718 and published posthumously in 1729).
In chronological order. For the history of the Euripides text after the first printed edition see Kannicht, Helena I, 109–29 (until 1969 and with special emphasis on Helen).
Some conjectures are first or only found in the successive editions of his Poetae Scenici Graeci (PSG), beginning 1830. See my list of abbreviations for details.
This almost exclusively reprints material from Liapis’ commentary. It seemed impractical to cross-refer to the relevant sections in each case.