^{page 210 note 2} In H(arleianus), also (chiefly in Bk. 7) the great number of perpendicular strokes for the horizontal, as steteŕt for stete***t (a substitution which the scribe does not understand), seems to point the same way.

^{page 210 note 3} The exceptions are UL, and only a slight acquaintance with R.

^{page 211 note 1} We asked Signor Rostagno to date it for as.

^{page 211 note 2} See Class. Rev. Nov. 1904, pp. 392–3, where I describe its value for the 1st Decade; Luchs had already seen the value of its 14th cent, additions as good ‘Spirensian.’

^{page 211 note 3} Proc. of Camb. Phil. Soc. Nov. 1902.

^{page 211 note 4} With regard to H I can only suggest that it is a copy of the same exemplar made (before the edition was begun or completed) by an inferior scribe, and under less watchful direction.

^{page 211 note 5} Dr. Conway has made notes from E which tend to show that it is very close to O, and in some places corrected by E² into harmony with O.

^{page 212 note 1} I have no record of DR here.

^{page 213 note 1} The early part of vii. may be specially instanced; repetitions, marginal incorporations, blunders of all kinds abound; most of which are given by Alschefski.

^{page 214 note 1} Camb. Phil. Soc. Nov. 1902.