^{page 236 note 1} ‘emerged from the χάος of all matter’: cf. M. Ant. iv. 3, Opp. Hal. v. 52.

^{page 237 note 1} On the ‘Schwanken zwischen -ιδι, -ιει’, typical of ‘Neujonisch’ cf. e.g. Kühner-Blass i, p. 446. Nothing authorizes Miss Gualandri to change βουβάλει of V into βούβαλι.

^{page 137 note 2} He uses ἐπισκἐπτομαι at 72. 5 and 11: all three possible variations (ἐπ¹σκοπέω, ἐπ¹σκοπεύω, ἐπ¹σκέπτομαι) are therefore utilized by him.

^{page 237 note 3} On such syntactical ‘disparates’, typical of late authors, cf. Jannaris, , Hist. Gr. Gramm, §§ 779, 1991.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 4} In sum: the original ΗΔϒ was itacistically misspelt ΗΔΙ; ΗΔΙ was, of course, taken to mean ΗΔΕΙ, so that ἤδει τοὺς ἁλιέας was born. Miss Gualandri misunderstands the whole process, as is evident from her discussion on p. 26.

^{page 137 note 5} A beautiful example in Steffens, Probengriech. Hss., Tafel 5, col. 2, line 8.