[83] This must be what the poet intends by κατασβεσω, however awkwardly expressed. See Hermann's note.
[84] Compare vs. 468 sq.
[85] This line is hopelessly corrupt.
[86] I read μεν ουν with the Cambridge editor.
[87] αζηλα is in opposition to the whole preceding clause.
[88] See the note of the Cambridge editor on Iph. Aul. 1372.
[89] I should prefer εστι δη,"she surely is."
[90] We must evidently read either διηλθον with Porson, or διελθε 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.