^{page 202 note 1} Lamer (RE., s.v. lusoria tabula) rightly refuses to admit that Becq's theory can be applied to xii scripta, but is wrong in alleging that the game is nowhere named: Agathias gives the name, τάβλη.

^{page 202 note 2} ‘Tables,’ the generic name, is more accurate; τάβλη is not exactly equivalent either to backgammon or to the French tric-trac, but is merely one representative of the family.

^{page 203 note 1} I cannot understand why δίβος has been equated with divus; surely the quantity alone would prevent this. The word is not mentioned in the old Liddell and Scott; in the new edition it should rather be explained as ‘a point on a backgammon board’ than as ‘a square on a draught board.’ E. A. Sophocles, in his Lexicon of Byzantine Greek, wrongly accents it δῑβος.

^{page 203 note 2} Because two or more men on any one point make movement impossible to that point by an opponent.

^{page 204 note 1} Jackson supports his view of the ἄʒυγες by an analogy (itself false) from latrunculi, an utterly different type of game; he further states, wrongly, that the men were originally arranged in threes, an inference from Ovid's account of the game of Merels (A.A. iii. 365), another quite different game.

^{page 205 note 1} In the earlier xii scripta game the Latin term fo a blot may have been ‘distans’; see Owen, S. G. note on Ovid, , Trist. ii. 475–6Google Scholar.