1. There is a disconcertingly large bibliography for such a little subject. The following will be cited by author's name alone: Andrieu, J., La dialogue antique (1954). Bain, D., Actors and audience (1977). Lowe, J.C.B., ‘The manuscript evidence for changes of speaker in Aristophanes’, BICS 9 (1962) 27ff. Koster, W.J.W., ‘Ad Aristophanis Thesmophoriazusarum fragmenta in PSI 1194 servata’, Acme 8 (1955) 93ff. Page, D.L., Actors' interpolations in Greek Tragedy (1934). Rutherford, W.G., A chapter in the history of annotation (1905). Taplin, O., The stagecraft of Aeschylus (1977). von Wilamowitz, U., Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie ed. 3 (1921).
2. Page 112-15; cf., for example, Wartelle, , Histoire du texte d'Éschyle (1971) 323ff., Handley, , The Dyskolos of Menander (1965) 48, 283.
3. Bain 53 n.2; cf. 18, 132f. The chief authority is Wilamowitz 125f.; cf., for example, Andrieu 188, Weissmann, , Die scenische Anweisungen in den Scholien (1896) 21–31 esp. 22, Zwierlein, , Die Recitationsdramen Senecas (1966) 128 n.5.
4. Andrieu passim, esp. 258-82, Lowe passim esp. 35-7. I add a few corroborative observations in Taplin 294.
5. Cf. Page 113, Dover, , Aristophanic Comedy (1972) 10.
6. I argue that the Erinyes are in fact still inside the skene: Taplin 369-74.
7. For some hunting cries see Xen., Kyn. 6. 17–20.
8. While we wait for TrGF, reference to papyrus fragments of Aeschylus is becoming unwieldy. This is POxy 2161, fr.474 Mette, 275 Lloyd-Jones, pp. 62-4, 78 in the edition of Werre–de Haas (1961).
9. Pearson's line-numbers throughout.
10. There is a good discussion in Siegmann, E., Untersuchungen zu Sophokles' Ichneutai (1941) 58–60.
12. In 204-6 the satyrs are not speaking to Silenus, but are saying that they, unlike him, will stay. Hunt was unduly worried about the paragraphoi after 206 and 210 (ed. pr. p.76). They simply mark the parts of the two hemichoruses (or even, as Garden, , BICS 18 (1971) 43–4 suggests, a change of metre).
13. See Siegmann (cited in n.10). Photo in POxy ix plate ii, and Turner, , Greek manuscripts (1971) plate 34.
14. Andrieu 186 includes another fragment of Sophoclean satyr play in his discussion of parepigraphai: POxy 1083 fr. 19 = fr. 6.19 on p.151 in Carden. But though written beneath the lines rather than in the margin this is evidently only an explanatory scholiastic note.
15. E.g.Page 114, Biehl, , Textprobleme in Euripides Orestes (1955) 81–2, also in his commentary (1965) and text (1975). This obscure Apollodorus is no.62 in RE I 2886. Murray even forgets his name and calls him Apollonius.
16. See Wilamowitz 125 n.5, Di Benedetto ad. loc.
17. On the diaeresis see Barrett on Eur., Hipp. 1360; on Rhesus and IA see Fraenkel, , Gnomon 37 (1965) 235.
19. Though Wilamowitz, despite his earlier stance (see n.3) thought that they might go back to Menander; see Das Schiedsgericht (1925)5- There is possibly another exit marked in the margin of Men., Misoumenos 269; see Gomme – Sandbach ad loc. (I owe these references to Dr Colin Austin.)
20. Rutherford 104; cf. Lowe 36, Koster 98; for arguments closer to mine see Russo, , Aristofane, autore di teatro (1962) 66–74, 299–302, Gelzer, RE Supp. xii 1551. For full and useful discussion of parepigraphai in comedy see Rutherford 101-14, Koster 96-102.
21 Second century A.D., not B.C. as supposed by Dearden, , The stage of Aristophanes (1976) 184 n.3. For discussion see Koster.
22. The precise text of both lines is open to dispute.