¹ The critical note reads ‘ Vat. i.e. mea’. Not having seen the manuscript (for the facsimile does not embrace the poems of the Appendix) I hesitate even to surmise that what it in fact offers is ‘’; but if it does not, its exemplar did.

² (Appendix 3. 7.) The reading of the manuscript is given as ‘đ [i.e. quod] ivat’. Fuchs's iuvat quid is not much help, iuvabit is a possibility, but seems a trifle elliptical even for this poet.

³ In any case, pascentes esse = pasci is faultless Latin: cf: Kühner–Stegmann, , Lat. Gr. i. 159.Google Scholar