^{page 32 note 2} T.'s ‘256–63’ is, presumably, a misprint.

^{page 32 note 3} 3.220–26 and 6.665–7.

^{page 32 note 4} 10.842–4.

^{page 32 note 5} 12.658‘60.

^{page 32 note 6} 12.710.

^{page 32 page 1} Curiously, the notes on the prose preface refer to Courtney's OCT line numbers and not to those in this edition. I shall follow the same practice.

^{page 33 note 2} Cf. OLD s.v. 7.

^{page 33 note 3} Cf. OLD s.v. 3 and, in particular, Silv. 1.4.10.

^{page 33 note 4} L. passes over the fact that the whole sentence begins sequitur libellus.

^{page 33 note 5} See e.g. Hollis on Ov. Met. 8.16.

^{page 33 note 6} Epod. 2.1 [oddly cited as 1.2.1] (beatus ille, qui procul negotiis) and Odes 2.16.3 as the model for Silv. 4.5.1 (Parvi beatus ruris honoribus); S. 1.9.1 (Ibam forte via Sacra) as tht for Silv. 4.6.1–2 (Forte remittentem euros…/…cum patulis tererem vagus otia Saeptis); Odes 1.2.1 (lam satis) as that for Silv. 4.7.1 (lam diu…); and Odes 1.17.1 as that for Silv. 5.2.1. Of these, S. 1.9.1 is worth a mention; but the others do not bear examination, especially the last where L. does not even quote the Latin.