L gives μήτ᾽ ἐπιπόνω ῾σιξ̓ μήτ᾽ ἐπιβαρυαχεῖ. While this verse is certainly corrupt, the antistrophic verse (1572) seems to afford firmer ground in the words φύλακα παρ᾽ Ἅιδᾳ. These three words, at least, have every appearance of genuineness; and they tally metrically with ἐπὶ βαρυα_χεῖ. That the latter is Doric for “βαρυηχεῖ” is confirmed by the fact that the schol. actually uses the latter form in his note; cp. 1663 “οὐ στενακτός”. Brunck's ἀδάματον (for MS. “ἀδάμαστον”) being certain in 1572, the question then is:—How are the words μήτ᾽ ἐπιπόνω μήτ̓ to be so corrected that they shall metrically answer to ἀδάματο_ν? The absence of the ι subscript agrees with the hypothesis of an original μητ᾽ ἐπιπόνως. If, with Wecklein, we regard this as having been a gloss on a genuine ἄπονα (adv. neut. pl., 319), and read ἄπονα μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ βαρυαχεῖ, an exact correspondence is obtained, without further change in the strophe, and without any change in the antistrophe. The sense is also clear.—In the Appendix other views are given. ἐπὶ βαρυαχεῖ … μόρῳ: for the prep. (=“"with"”) see on 1554. This prayer to Pluto needed the preface “εἰ θέμις” (1556), since he “στεναγμοῖς καὶ γόοις πλουτίζεται” (O. T. 30). Cp.