^{page 344 note 1} Wachsmuth, Curt, ‘Za den Handscbriften der Silven des Statius,’ Leipziger Siudien, 1902, pp. 203–214Google Scholar ; Vollmer, Fr., ‘Zur Ueberlieferung v. Statius' Silvae,’ Hermes 38 (1903), pp. 134–139Google Scholar ; Engelmann, A., ‘Ueber die Handsehriften der Silven des Statius,’ ib. pp. 285–291Google Scholar ; Klotz, A., ib. pp. 468–480.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} MrClark, A. C. in Classical Review, vol. xiii. 1899, pp. 124sq.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 3} Mr. Clark mentioned it as a possibility l.e. though he did not approve of it.

^{page 345 note 1} In Pastor's History of the Popes (Eng. tr.), I. p. 258, the year is given as 1423.

^{page 345 note 2} Herr Vollmer has Hermes p. 135 n. ‘it is certain that M stands at the head of all our MSS.’ ib. p. 138 ‘M is the only source of our tradition.’ These statements are not equivalent, whatever Herr Vollmer may think.

^{page 346 note 1} I translate Herr Vollmer's little romance for the benefit of the English reader. ‘Of course Politian knew that Poggio had found the Silvac. Now he came upon an exemplar Gallica scriptum manu i.e. in the archaising learned hand of the 15th century, and in this stood written by some one or other’ [here are then things tbat Herr Vollmer does not know] ‘the observation istum librum ex Gallia Poggius attulit as in late MSS of the elegies to Maecenas we find inucnta ab Henoc in Dacia, or in the Ambrosianus of the Orestis tragoedia Horestis fabula ab Enoch Asculano reperta. The writer of this of course only meant this to apply to the Silvac in general: but Politian referred the notice to the codex before him, which on the ground of the writing he might well regard as a Poggianus.’ Hermes p. 138. Herr Klotz approves of this ib. p. 480 ‘Die Möglichkeit dieses Irrthums hat Vollmer S. 138 vollständig glaubhaft (my italics) erklärt.’

It may be worth while adding here that in another case Politian was perfectly well able to distinguish between an old manuscript of foreign origin, the Ambrosianus of Columella, and a copy of a Poggianus made by Poggio's contemporary Niccolo (Haeussner, Die Handschriftliche Ueberlieferung des Columella, p. 10).

^{page 347 note 1} Examples of M ¹, M ², and m may be seen in the page reproduced at the end of the Teubner text.

^{page 347 note 2} Here I must contend against Mr. Clark (l.c. p. 127) and others that we are bound to take the plain meaning of Poggio's words. If we do not, we have no right to any opinion on the matter at all.

^{page 348 note 1} I give the full references in order that any one who likes may test the ignorance of this scribe for himself and compare the result with the ignorance displayed in the Matritensis, a long extract from which is printed verbatim and literatim in Klotz praef. p. xlii. sqq.

^{page 348 note 2} See Classical Review, vol. 16. p. 422 sq.

At the request of correspondents I note that there is no error on p. 421 col. b of this notice in the passage : ‘That the Matritensis … is not the “aetus codex Poggii” should be settled once and for all by the fact that according to the express testimony of Politian the “uetus” did not contain the line 1. 4. 86a, and the Matiitensis does contain it. If it is not, then, for all the good the Corsini copy is for the textual criticism of the Siluae, it might be flung into the Tiber.’ ‘If it is not’ means ‘if it is not so settled.’

^{page 349 note 1} See VII, below.

^{page 350 note 1} In the preface to Book II Engelmann notes 37 differences from the Matritensis, 28 of which the Excerpts correct into the exact reading of that MS (pp. 107 sqq.).