[93] I can not help thinking this line is spurious, and the preceding θηται corrupt. One would expect θησηι.
[94] Cf. Kuinoel on Cydon. de Mort. Contem. § 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 οισθ' ‛ουν ‛ο δρασον.
[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 ‛η 'ν Αυλιδι σφαγεισα. 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.