^{page 39 note 1} That the fuit of the Corpus MS. may go back to some P tradition is made probable by the fact that this MS. preserves with P alone vv. x. 100–114 in their entirety (x. 114 flamina flammis: Corp.). In general this MS. is not noteworthy.

^{page 40 note 1} To quote Lactantius in support of its survival is absurd. 1. Though he occasionally recognises a P reading he does so not more often than any one of our MSS. 2. He can be shewn in numberless places to have used a text in general inferior to that of any of our ix–xii saec. MSS. 3. His text has been endlessly interpolated, and any unique P reading justly arouses suspicion:—e.g. i. 32 rightly obelized by Jahnke.

^{page 41 note 1} Some of these (I have only examined them cursorily) are worth mentioning:—i. 72 proieci ante matrem; i. 177 fortunam]potentiam; i. 227 imposta] decepta: innata: ad facinus; i. 320 queritur quod tam tarde incoepisset fuga; ii. 78 instrumentum taurina pelle involutum. cf. Bährens' conj. taurinas. pelles; ii. 129 irruit in retia; viii. 437 marti (sic)] in palaestra.