^{page 354 note 1} Lejay's discussion of the relationships of the MSS shows much industry and acumen, but it is vitiated by some very serious oversights, which will be mentioned later.

^{page 354 note 2} The words are those of Hosius in his review of Beck's work, Berl. Phil. Woch. Feb. 23, 1901.

^{page 356 note 1} The proofs of this are, briefly stated, as follows:—(1) Many differences of reading throughout. (2) Especial divergence in Bks. IX and X. (3) A few striking readings in Z which are not found in any other MSS, or, at any rate, not in any of those usually cited: e.g. ii 27 nec tam (sed iam O).

^{page 357 note 1} Hosius gives in his stemma (p. xlix), but he does not mean to affirm positively that Z and M are derived immediately from the same codex (see p. xxxv of his ed.).

^{page 357 note 2} Also of a ninth-century Montpellier codex (F, according to Beck's notation).

^{page 357 note 3} In spite of this Lejay, by a curious oversight, assigns Z and B to different families!

^{page 357 note 4} Students of Latin palaeography know only too well ‘the difficulty of accurately assigning MSS of the period of the ninth and tenth century to their true positions’ (Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Manual, p. 262). In the present case the evidence afforded by the handwriting is actually misleading, and it is to be regretted that Beck made an attempt to support his conclusion — the only possible one — on palaeographical grounds.

^{page 357 note 5} One small piece of evidence, which Hosius does not mention, is rather interesting. In iv 352, for aperimus B reads asprimus. This reading is easily accounted for by Z, which reads asprimus ( = as-perrimus).

^{page 358 note 1} Often also with Voss. II (U); e.g. P and U agree in reversing the order of viii 25 and 26.

^{page 358 note 2} Praef. p. liv; also Berl. Phil. Woch. 23rd Feb. 1901.

^{page 358 note 3} Since writing the above I have noticed that Mr. Heitland gives in vol. ix of this Review, p. 37, a few examples of such differences.

^{page 358 note 4} ‘Qui [i.e. Steinhartus] quod saepius quam mihi contigit deletam lectionem invenit, explicandum esse puto e meliore condicione libri, quo tempore Steinhartus multis ante me annis eum contulit.’ Francken's ed., vol. i, Praef. p. xii.

^{page 360 note 1} Omission of lines through this cause is not uncommon in the MSS of Lucan. Cf. ii 466, vi 562.