^{page 316 note 1} Michaelis (p. xii.) cites nine examples, out of a total of twenty-three available instances, of an agreement between AB us. CDEΔ (the cod. Vindobonensis is ignored)—a very unfortunate selection as no fewer than eight of them give the false reading, the other being doubtful.

^{page 316 note 2} Out of eleven instances cited on p. xiv. ch. 27, 16 cum for et cum of the Y class has nothing in its favour, while the est in 37, 23 is also unjustly retained by ABD.

^{page 317 note 1} On this passage, cf. Am. Jour. of Phil. xii. p. 454 ff.

^{page 318 note 1} There remain about 100 such variants unnoticed by Scheuer in which the two classes seem to blend into one another. The majority of these arise out of orthographical differences and common seribal errors. They in no way, however, invalidate the conclusion reached by Scheuer, as might appear at first sight. But regarding this point, I must refer to the Prolegomena of my forthcoming edition.