^{page 198 note 1} I hope soon to deal with the MSS of the earlier books of the Verrines. Meanwhile I need only state here that the remaining folios of this portion of Par. 7775 (i.e. from Dolabellae occise ii, 1, § 90 to singu, for singulari, § 111) are accurately reproduced in Par. 7823. The two traditions agree verbatim et litteratim: they agree also in the division of sentences. This fact shonld be enough to elevate the authority of Par. 7823 above G¹ G² and Ld. At the foot of the folio which as I have already reported, the copyist completed with the letters singu, Claudius Puteanus has written Plurima hic desunt. Thereafter follow two blank pages, and then the text of Books IV, V. It is important to note that Par. 7823 or D, which is derived from what I take to have been the archetype, is known to have had affinity to the Codex Stephani (Zumpt, Praef. p. xii).

^{page 200 note 1} For the confusion of si, quia cp. Div. in Caec. § 5 (p. 101, 36) si mihi unus p. Harl. 2687 : quia mihi unus G²ςλ : cum mihi unus Ld. If the variation has resulted from the misinterpretation of a compendium, it might be allowable to suggest quoniam. Similarly at ii, 1, § 54 p and Harl. 2687 support the vulgate with si in eas. D at first wrote quin ea, and then corrected to si in eas. The cod. Ld. has quam, and Harl. 4105 .