^{page 56 note 1} See for instance the long ‘variorum’ discussion of Ov. ex P. iv. 16. 33 on pp. 26–28; and the similar review of Grattius' literary merits on pp. 73–76—what kind of literary criticism is this? It is mostly taken en bloc from Enk, in any case.

^{page 56 note 2} ‘Lygdamus und Ovid. Zur Methodik der literarischen Prioritätsbestimmung’, Eranos, lviii (1960), 92–111Google Scholar; cf. ibid., pp. 281–297, Lee, A. G., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. N.S. V (1958–1959), 15–22.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} If indeed this, which is Sannazaro's correction (not accepted by Verdière), is what Grattius wrote. By any interpretation the verse is odd and obscure—another indication of the direction of the indebtedness,

^{page 56 note 4} Cf. Marouzeau, J., Quelques aspects de la formation du latin littéraire (1949), p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} ‘I trust that the reader now agrees that the indications of any independence in B are so shadowy that, in the face of the concrete evidence on the other side, one must concur with the eminent Traube and his successors’ (op. cit., p. 9).

^{page 57 note 2} If the hand of the exemplar was as troublesome as Verdière suggests, the divergences between A and B, if they were copied independently, ought to be much sharper than they are. But in any case, what evidence is there that ‘Merovingian’ manuscripts played a part in the transmission of classical texts?

^{page 58 note 1} These ridiculous sigla, besides degrading the (sometimes illustrious) names which they represent, do not even provide a ready identification: thus SC = Scaliger, SH = Schrader, SL = Schenkl. Verdière's employment of them is neither consistent nor accurate: e.g. at 16 he does not record that numine is in Haupt's text, in fact he says explicitly that ‘tous les éditeurs’ accept nomine.

^{page 58 note 2} It is in any case a silly (as well as an ugly) convention. How is one supposed to know that at 301 ‘fetae’ in the text indicates ‘faetae’ in the manuscript?

^{page 58 note 3} Cf. his version of 131 et magis incomptus [Steyner] superat ‘Stern’ tutoris ‘Verdière] agrestis: for a demonstration of loose thinking based on dubious premisses the accomder, panying note would be hard to beat. For instance, Virg, . Aen. vii. 751Google Scholarfronde super galeam et felici comptus oliua is apparently the foundation for a statement (pp. 256–7) that ‘i’ olivier de culture chez Virgile est appelé comptus’ (I say ‘apparently’, since he also appeals to Aen. viii. 116, 128—equally fatuous citations).