[81] Diodorus, xx. 14. quotes this and the preceding line reading [Greek:  chthonos] for [Greek:  petras].  He supposes that Euripides derived the present account from the sacrifices offered to Saturn by the Carthaginians, who caused their children to fall from the hands of the statue [Greek:  eis ti chasma pleres pyros].  Compare Porphyr. de Abst. ii. 27.  Justin, xviii. 6.  For similar human sacrifices among the Gauls, Caesar de B.G. vi. 16, with the note of Vossius.  Compare also Saxo Grammaticus, Hist.  Dan. iii. p. 42, and the passages of early historians quoted in Stephens’ entertaining notes, p. 92.

[82] Cf.  Tibull. i. 3, 5.  “Abstineas, mors atra, precor, non hic mihi mater, Quae legat in maestos ossa perusta sinus; non soror, Assyrios cineri quae dedat odores, et fleat effusis ante sepulchra comis.”

[83] This must be what the poet intends by [Greek:  katasbeso], however awkwardly expressed.  See Hermann’s note.

[84] Compare vs. 468 sq.

[85] This line is hopelessly corrupt.

[86] I read [Greek:  men oun] with the Cambridge editor.

[87] [Greek:  azela] is in opposition to the whole preceding clause.

[88] See the note of the Cambridge editor on Iph.  Aul. 1372.

[89] I should prefer [Greek:  esti de],"she surely is.”

[90] We must evidently read either [Greek:  dielthon] with Porson, or [Greek:  dielthe] with Jan., Le Fevre, and Markland.

[91] I almost agree with Dindorf in considering this line spurious.

[92] For this construction compare Ritterhus. ad Oppian, Cyn. i. 11.

[93] I can not help thinking this line is spurious, and the preceding [Greek:  thetai] corrupt.  One would expect [Greek:  thesei].

[94] Cf.  Kuinoel on Cydon. de Mort.  Contem.  Sec. 1, p. 6, n. 18.

[95] Literally, “no longer a hinderance,” i.e. “that I be no longer responsible for its fulfillment.”

[96] The Cambridge editor, however, seems to have settled the question in favor of [Greek:  oisth’ houn ho drason].

[97] I must candidly confess that none of the explanations of these words satisfy me.  Perhaps it is best to regard them, with Seidler, as merely signifying the mutability of fortune.

[98] i.e. as far as the fulfilling of my oath is concerned.

[99] The letter evidently commences with the words [Greek:  he ’n Aulidi sphageisa].  I can not imagine how Markland and others should have made it commence with the previous line.

[100] i.e. in what company.

[101] This line is either spurious or out of place.  See the Cambridge editor.

[102] The Cambridge editor in a note exhibiting his usual chastened and elegant judgment, regards these three lines as an absurd and trifling interpolation.  For the credit of Euripides, I would fain do the same.

[103] The same elegant scholar justly assigns these lines to Iphigenia.