[94]: I. II. 1-2

[95]: Donat. ad _And._ 505, _Eun._ 224, 288, 403, _Ad._ 187,
395.

[96]: Ad _And._ 194, 301, _Eun._ 467, 986, _Hec._ 98, 439,
640, _Ad._ 101. Cf. _Ad._ 96.; cum admiratone indignantis; 97;
intento digito et infestis in Micionem oculis.

[97]: Ad _Eun._ 1055.

[98]: Ad _And._ 633, _Eun._ 233, 451, _Hec._ 63, _Ad._
259.

[99]: Ad _Phor._ 145.

[100]: Ad _Ad._ 200.

[101]: Ad _Eun._ 187.

[102]: VII. 2.8-10.

[103]: Cf. Diom. 291, 23 ff., K; Ribbeck, _Rom. Trag._ p. 634,
believes that this was the rule, but he is apparently alone in the
opinion. Cf. Budensteiner in Bursian's _Jahresbericht_ CVI, p. 162
ff., who agrees with the proof of van Eck, _Quaest. Sten. Rom._
(Amsterdam 1892), that it was an isolated intance.

[104]: We are not even remotely concerned with metrical analysis. For that