^{page 142 note 1} Like Professor Conway, in his article ‘On the Interweaving of Words with Pairs of Parallel Phrases,’ The Classical Review, xiv. (1900) pp. 357CrossRefGoogle Scholarsqq., I use italics to show the correspondences of the words in question, not the punctuation marks employed by Madvig Adversaria 2 p. 71 and others after him, with their misleading modern associations. The effect of such marks is not to reunite the separated words but to disjoin the rest.

^{page 143 note 1} E.g. Professor Housman has several copious ones in his notes on Manilius and elsewhere.

^{page 143 note 2} E.g. in Kiihncr's, Lateinische Grammatik, ed. Stegmann, , vol. ii., pt. 2, pp. 618sqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 143 note 3} Their immediate postposition as in Lucr. 1. 841 ‘ignibus ex’ is a different matter and •does not concern us here.

^{page 145 note 1} ‘Man darf auch eins nicht vergessen: der römische Dichter konnte auf ein Publikum von Hörern rechnen und ein sinngemässer Vortrag ist oft der beste Kommentar,’ Hildebrandt, R., Beiträge zur Erklärung des Gedichtes Aetna, p. 28.Google Scholar