^{page 187 note 1} The old editors corrected this to παραγύμενα. The word is perhaps rather suspicious. Trypho recognizes πεποιημένα as a subdivision of όνοματοτπıíα, but as covering those words which are imitative of natural sounds, in fact as we (and Q. in § 31) use όνοματοποιία. What Q. here calls πεποιημένα are with Trypho όν. κατάπαρονομασίαν. Possibly weshould read here παραπεποιημένα. The scholiasts seem to use παραπεποȋέν in this πεπ is something akin to Q.'s (u. Rutherford, , Chapter in the History of Annotation, p. 239Google Scholar .

^{page 187 note 2} The only variant known to me in the early editions is that of Obrecht, who writes it ‘euanuit contra vio in eo: ferimus in Graecis obeliscos.Τπερ-boreo, dure, et tamen iungere Maronem sollerter et diuidere Septemtriones uidemus’—strange mixture of ingenuity and perversity.

^{page 188 note 1} He adds in a footnote 'Obidius G. post Graecis, οίόβιος suspicatur Schenkl—ocoeludituino bono eo A. G. οίοβοκολος vix novimus, Schenkl.’ These suggestions do not seem to me very hopefull.

^{page 188 note 2} Something might perhaps be said for reading ‘septentrionem.’ I daresay Q. would feel an όνοματοποιίακατάδιαίρεσιν in ‘septem-triones’ but itwould be durior in septem-trio. He quotes the latter in § 66 in connexion with hyper-baton, and he has a trick of repeating his examples.

^{page 189 note 1} That no such word exists matters nothing this purpose. The odds are, I think, in favour of the missing word being some invention of this kind.

^{page 190 note 1} It is possible, as some earlier commentator has, I think, suggested, that the name of Ovid has somehow crept into the text from the fact that he as well as Virgil has the tmesis septem-trio.