^{page 50 note 1} Cf. Hor. Od. ii. 7. 5 Pompei meorum prime sodalium; Sat. ii. 8. 1 ut Nasidieni iuvit te cena beati? In Catull. lxiv. 178 Idomeneosne is generally accepted as a correction oiidoneosneor Idmoneosne.

^{page 50 note 2} Postgate in C.R. 1905, 260 couples this passage with Cat. lxiv. 37 and Calp. Sic. iv. IOI, calling them ‘this trio of cripples’ which ‘a number of scholars have propped back to back in the hope of retaining the position’. But whether Pharsaliam in the Catullus passage is defensible or not (Ellis defends it as quadrisyllabic rather than with synizesis), Catullus' metrical peculiarities have little bearing on those of Statius. In Calp. Sic. iv. IOI Heinsius's conjecture Parrhasiae should be accepted.

^{page 51 note 1} See Klotz, 2nd ed., p. lvi and app. crit.

^{page 51 note 2} And in Ov. Met. xii. 9, where the manuscripts vary between Boeotaque tellus, Boeotiaque tellus, and Boeotia tellus.

^{page 51 note 3} For examples of this rarity elsewhere see Thesaurus s.v. ‘hic’ (pron.).

^{page 51 note 4} The variants, which are clearly designed to simplify are -que deest and iam deest in Theb. viii. 236; neque deest, unmetrically, x. 236; desunt, defit, and deest nunc in xi. 276.

^{page 51 note 5} Defended by Gronovius; deeo occurs only here and in Sall. frag. hist., ed. Maurenbrecher, iii. 96 AII.

^{page 51 note 6} For a similar anachronism cf. Ach. i. 422 murorum tormenta Pylos Messenaque tendunt.

^{page 51 note 9} Bailey, K. C., The Elder Pliny's Chapters on Chemical Subjects, vol. ii (1932).Google Scholar