[153] The Cambridge critic again proposes μεταβολαι δ' ευδαιμονια, which he felicitously supports. Musgrave has however partly anticipated this emendation.
[154] Dindorf has shown so little care in editing this passage, that I have merely recalled the old reading, αερι δ' ‛ιστια προτονοι κ. πρ. ‛υπερ στολον εκπ., following the construction proposed by Heath, and approved, as it appears, by the Cambridge editor. Seidler's note is learned and instructive, but I have some doubts about his criticism.
[155] i.e. I wish I might become a bird and fly homeward.
[156] See ed. Camb.
[157] But see ibid. Dindorf's text is a hopeless display of bad readings and worse punctuation.
[158] Reading γεννας, I have done my best with this passage, but I can only refer to the Cambridge editor for a text and notes worthy of the play.
[159] I have recalled the old reading, ‛οσια.
[160] On these sort of prodigies, see Musgrave, and Dansq. on Quintus Calaber, xii. 497 sqq.
[161] "in eo, ut" is the force of εν εργωι.
[162] Perhaps a sly allusion to their escape.