I said on p. 16 of this vol. of the Journal of Philology 〚this edition p. 40〛 that I feared some of the corrections there proposed had been forestalled by others. I am to blame that this is true of a larger number than one could wish, mainly through trusting to my memory of Burmann's notes instead of giving them a fresh perusal. I now make restitution: 1 xx 24 sacram Rutgersius, II ix 7 uisuram (uisurum is an error) Paley, xxviii 62 punctuated so by Postgate, xxxiv 12 posses tun and 40 irato Heinsius, III viii 12 haec Liuineius, xvi 21 cursus Markland, xvii 24 carpta Heinsius, xviii 21 manet Palmer, xxii 15 siqua et Heinsius, IV ii 12 credis id Postgate, vii 23 eunti Reland. The three living scholars will, I hope, accept my apologies.

Further, the following proposals have more or less in common with my own, and ought to be mentioned: I iii 37 nempe ibi Burmann, II viii 30 Teucros Passeratius, ix 12 apposito…Simoente Guietus, x 2 campum Maeonio and xxi 12 excepta Aesonia est Heinsius, III vi 28 exsuccis unguibus Burmann.

Let me here subjoin a few conjectures accidentally omitted from the paper of which I speak: II i 53 an in me for siue, II xxxii 9 quid iubet for cum uidet, III i 32 terra for Troia, III xix 17 more parentis for tempore matris, IV iv 83 ascensum monstrat dubio for mons erat ascensu dubiusy IV viii 13 fuerunt for fuerint.