^{page 27 note 1} For a general treatment of the subject, cf. especially: Corssen, Ausspr. I. 317 f. and II. 706 f.; Reisig, Vorles. bearb. von Hagen p. 326, Note 271; Kuehner, Lat. Gram. I. p. 501 f.; Lindsay, Lat. Lang. p. 507; Neue-Wagener, III.³ p. 464 f., 469 f. etc., and Sommer, Lat.' Laut- nnd Formenlehre (1902), p. 609 f.

^{page 27 note 2} Reisig—Note 271 says that the uncontracted forms are by far more common, a statement not true at all of the plup. subj. and perf. infin. Sommer, too, fails to take into consideration the difference in usage in the different moods and tenses. Strange to say in accounting for the use of -averam and -everam at the end of the verse in early comedy, he refers to the end of the verse as the ‘ Schatzkammer altertümlicher Formen,’ as if that explained the phenomena. As a matter of fact, in about 18,000 verses (iambic, trochaic, and cretic) out of 21,000, Plautus could not use the contracted form at all at the end of the verse, and he used it in the only place he could use it, in the middle. In other words it was the law governing the structure of the verse that was the decisive factor in its use or non use. Lindsay's remark p. 507: ‘ in Plautus equally with the contracted,’ is also open to the same objection.

^{page 27 note 3} Cf. Class. Rev. 1899 p. 251, and add the following (Meister's ed.): pronuntiasse 7, 1, 53; inquisisse 3, 11, 21; praeterisse 3, 6, 28; 6, 5, 1; appellarunt 5, 10, 7; 7, 6, 4; dubitarunt 1, 6, 38; claborarunt 12, 11, 22; compararit 8, pr. 28; roborarit 8, pr. 28; adfirmaris 7, 2, 12; peierarit 5, 6, 5; trucidarint 3, 8, 20.

^{page 30 note 1} Neue-Wagener III.³ p. 479 treat this subject in the most general way, citing no passages and giving but two of the above verbs.

^{page 30 note 2} Neue-Wagener, l.c. cite only putastis and servastis.

^{page 30 note 3} Id. p. 450 cite for this 34, 41, 3 and give an incorrect reference in 5, 40, 9.

^{page 31 note 1} Neue-Wagener III.³ p. 480 refers to Drak. 21, 44, 7 and says that the passages there cited for -arunt have been changed in the latest editions to -averunt. This note, however, needs revision, as it is true of but 2 out of the 10.

^{page 31 note 2} To Neue-Wagener III.³ p. 494 f., who cite only 4, add: decreverunt: 4, 58, 7; 6, 21, 3; 7, 3, 2; 23, 34, 13; 26, 14, 2; 32, 5; 28, 21, 5; 29, 15, 5; 30, 2, 4; 31, 4, 1; 8, 3; 9, 8; 13, 6; 49, 1; 32, 8, 1; 28, 8; 33, 21, 9; 34, 21, 8; 35, 41, 7; 37, 1, 10; 55, 7; 38, 50, 3; 31, 5; 42, 5; 52, 8; 39, 33, 3; 40, 19, 4; 52, 2; 43, 4, 11; 45, 12, 10; 17, 1; 25, 7.

^{page 31 note 3} For decrevere add: 26, 28, 3; 27, 37, 7; 35, 41, 2; 43, 15, 4.

^{page 31 note 4} For quieverunt add: 32, 13, 15 and change 24, 19, 3 to 24, 19, 5.

^{page 31 note 5} For quievere add: 8, 7, 20; 13, 8; and 40, 30, 7.

^{page 31 note 6} On p. 487 novere 3, 67, 5 is omitted.

^{page 31 note 7} For agnovere add: 7, 39, 13; 40, 1.

^{page 31 note 8} For cognoverunt add: 37, 23, 5.

^{page 31 note 9} For cognovere add: 5, 36, 7; 7, 39, 13; 40, 1 34, 20, 6.

There are in all 50 passages omitted. Furthermore on p. 192 f. they omit 18 for accepere, 16 for fecere, and 7 for evasere.

^{page 32 note 1} Neue-Wagener l.c. cite for desciverant 35, 40, 4, but this is a typographical error; conciverant 6, 7, 4 should be 6, 7, 1; conciverat cited for 26, 9, 6 has been changed to concitat in Weiss.-M. Müller. And consciverat 24, 26, 1 should be on p. 461 and not on p. 463.

^{page 32 note 2} Neue-W. III.³ p. 488 omits: norim 23, 42, 12; cognorit 27, 17, 14; and noritis 6, 18, 10, and cites norint 21, 35, 9 for 21, 38, 9.

^{page 35 note 1} If the reading is correct, it seems to be due to Livy's fondness for variety of expression; verberassc ac necasse … consecravisse.

^{page 36 note 1} It is evident from the numerous omissions for Livy's usage that are pointed out above, that Neue-Wagener's work is for Livy unreliable and needs thorough revision.