^{page 390 note 1} White seems anxious to combat the traditional view that latifundia perdidere Italiam. Despite White's article (B.I.C.S. xiv [1967], 62 sq.) the present reviewer is not convinced that latifundia did not cause depopulation and rural decay over much of Italy.

^{page 390 note 2} Add arbutus, cornus, corulus; the glandiferae (Plin. xvi. 6 sq.) also merit mention.

^{page 390 note 3} What would the author say to a student who referred him to ‘a well-known Attic vase’ (227)?

^{page 391 note 1} Cf. Crawford himself in Encyclopaedia Britannica ¹³, Supp. i. 197.

^{page 391 note 2} Cf. Rose, V., Anecdota Graeca et Graecolatina ii (Berlin, 1870), 129 sq.Google Scholar; ‘fragment (2)’ discusses much more than fruit.

^{page 391 note 3} Cf. Pliny xv. 9.

^{page 391 note 4} I see that Heitland (Agricola [Cambridge, 1921], 168) has made this point.

^{page 391 note 5} How does he reconcile this statement with the figures (Roman 42, U.K. 20 mandays per acre) on p. 414?

^{page 391 note 6} The conclusions on p. 183 take no account of the comparison with New England on p. 414.

^{page 392 note 1} I should add to the Bibliography: F. Orth, Der Feldbau der Römer, Prog. Frankf.- a.-M., 1900; Keightley, T., Notes on the Bucolics and Georgics of Virgil, London, 1846Google Scholar; Makkonen, O., Ancient Forestry: an Historical Study, i–ii, Helsinki, 1967–1969.Google Scholar