^{page 241 note 1} MSS. Lat. 8538, A.

^{page 241 note 2} Opicscula ii. 84.

^{page 241 note 3} Fleckeisen's Jahrb. Suppl. B. iii., 1857—1860, p. 113.

^{page 241 note 4} In the printed book we find e.g. Scidae and Dec. quoted together for memini enim luum xiii. 33, 4; in the MS., however, ‘Scid. Turn, et Crusell.’ Also Dec. is quoted where it was said to have been deficient, e.g. xi. 7, 1, xv. 29, 2, xvi. 1, 1. The rough notes show that in all these cases Dec. has been erroneously substituted for Crusell.

^{page 242 note 242 1} De Ciceronis ad Atticum cpistulis rccenscndis, Weidmann, 1892.

^{page 242 note 2} ib. p. 105.

^{page 242 note 3} Manitius, , Philologisches aus alten Bibliothekskatalogen, p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 4} Mendelssohn, p. viii. n. 1.

^{page 242 note 5} Haupt erroneously says, when speaking of this reading, that iu the rough draft Bosius ‘de decurtalo tacet.’ The only other error of Haupt which I have detected is that on x. 12, 2 he ascribes to the MS. the statement ‘vett. codd. παραθλειτ∘ν.’ It should be ΠΑΡΑΘΤΛΕΙΤΕοΝ.

^{page 245 note 1} Lehmann, p. 105.

^{page 246 note 1} This note first appears in the third edition Paris, 1570

^{page 246 note 2} This conjecture is also mentioned in the second edition of Lambinus' Horace [Paris, 1567], on Sat. i. 6, 115

^{page 247 note 1} Bulletin du bibliophile, Sept. 1856, p. 917. Since this was sent to press, Mr. Purser has pointed out that the connexion of the name of the MS. with de Tonrnes was suggested by Lelimann.