[1] Quotation unidentifiable (but probably a work of history).
[2] Untrue: this is the imperfect, the third person singular, of diorqo/w (cf. delta 1196). A drastic intervention to delete this secondary gloss (in the margin of ms.I) u(persunteliko\s or any attempt to modify the text (such as a correction to u(pe\r sunteli/as or u(pe\r sunta/xews; cf. Gaisford’s notes) would be unwarranted. The Suda provides other instances of a similar misinterpretation: an imperfect is classified as a pluperfect in epsilon 2503, eta 37, iota 160; a perfect imperative in epsilon 1849; an aorist infinitive in alphaiota 323.