$06 RESTORATION OP A VERSE IN SOPHOCLES. 



fore BRjvy, whereby they grew together through the fault 

 of the copyift, and thus got into the text. 



It was now very conceivable, that a tranfcriber, to 

 whom the fyllable tso of zsovu appeared fo ihining, might 

 make of $%n 9 the leclion of the fcholiaft, on my taking 

 away the explicatory eth, the word ^rrore. 



This done, I had only to turn the well-known xio-co^ai 

 into the lefs-known, and therefore explained by it, 

 Kkt<tu 9 and botlf the verfes were equal : 



At(T(Tu0 3 |A^T£ -GSO W&J 



The metre of the fixth verfe founded to me in the 

 ftrophe entirely pure : 



In the antiflrophe the dog of hell jumped with feven 

 {hort fyllables ; I wrote therefore <pux<*jc' A'i^ y the doric 

 genitive inftead of AWc&o, which the gloffator miftook 

 for the accufative of AV?, and accordingly ftuck in his 

 trap* before it. Thus the lixth verfe of the antiflrophe 

 was there : 



Allow me to make yet a remark or two on this chorus, 

 which have nothing to do with the deficient verfe. 



What means £Hjaw<ra* in the feventh verfe of the 

 ftrophe ? What it ought to mean is manifeft. The 

 fcholiaft explains it by K&W^out,; namely oJW or vrogziav 

 a;, as wc find in Steph. Lexicon. Might not Sophocles 

 have written s^awa-ai ? 



In the third verfe of the antiftrophe frauds §om. In 

 Doric it would be <pa,v1i. 



And in the twelfth verfe of the antiflrophe, moft of 

 the editions read, as the Johnfonian does, omwwov* The 



fcholiaft 



