^{page 340 note 1} This notation is used for the fifteenth-century portions of the Marcianus.

^{page 341 note 1} The curious may compare André's stemma (p. xlvi) with Luck's (p. 18). Luck uses some 35 more manuscripts (including fragments) than André, though it must be remembered that, as already stated, his collations are selective; and he permits himself some (to me acceptable) imprecisions in reporting the recentiores.

^{page 341 note 2} We need not stay to argue the matter, but it may be noted that the list includes i. 8. 20 pati, iii. 4. 36 fide … mihi, iv. 1. 53 haec (fem. Pl.).

^{page 341 note 3} Some of the proper names in the list, such as ii. 406 iliacusque, iv. 1. 15 lyrneside, do not greatly impress; but let them stand.

^{page 341 note 4} See, for instance, iii. 6. 38, iv. 3. 47 for notes that give a false notion of its status. At iv. 1. 60 it is solemnly cited for the spelling saeua.

^{page 341 note 5} Something he might also have done before printing Cenchris at i. 10. 9 and noting that ‘la forme Cenchreis dissyllabique donnée par les éditeurs n'est pas attestée dans les manuscrits’. He does not stay to consider if the form Cenchris is conceivable in classical Latin.

^{page 341 note 6} He says (p. xlv) five, but parat at iii. 10. 11 is Owen's.

^{page 342 note 1} It is unfortunate that Luck, who accepts the transposition, omits to add the numeration of the verses as transmitted. André puts the couplet in parentheses, as if that helped.

^{page 342 note 2} The Index Nominum is in a rare muddle just here. Apropos of proper names I take this opportunity of noting, with reference to iv. 7. 18 (cf. p. 169 n. 8), that the arguments that led Scaliger and Heinsius to emend the name Gyges to Gyas (the form accepted by André) and Gyes respectively wherever it occurs and some editors, including myself, to accept their corrections, have been exposed as false by M. L. West in his note on Hes. Theog. 149.