^{page 163 note 1} So I take this opportunity of saying that the conjecture logos at Mart. III 20 5, which I published in C. Q. 1919 p. 69, had been published by Thiele, G. in Philol. 1911 p. 548Google Scholar; and that logis in Phaed. Ill prol. 37, which I proposed in the same place, is at any rate not mine, as it was mentioned two months earlier by Mr, Vollmer in his Lesungen and Deutungen III p. 10Google Scholar.

^{page 165 note 1} I cite here Sall. Iug. 93 2 ‘haud procul ab latere castelli quod auorsum proeliantibus erat’ because the thes, ling. Lat., being a dictionary, misconstrues it at II p. 1323 66 and referes quod to castelli.

^{page 166 note 1} At Manil. III 355, where the MSS give eruptis in the sense of ereptis, I said I had no second example of that form; but there exists one in Appul. apol. 28 ‘curae meae eruptum’. I doubt however if any trust is to be put in MSS when they present - ruptus for -ruptus in compounds other than subripio. When for instance at Luc. IV 35 and Stat. Theb. VII 316 the most and best MSS have direpta and abreptis, and a few offer dirupta and abruptis, I regard these as mere blunders; and I do not advise editors of Phaedrus to retain the corruptus of the MSS in app. Per. 13 18, nor editors of Catullus to interpret abrupto as abrepto in 68 84. As somebody will some day cite in this connexion the abruption of Manil. V 107, which all editors change to abreptum, I give warning that it is the participle of abrumpo and means άπότομον, praefractum, as in Sil. VII 219.

^{page 167 note 1} The proposal of Hardie, W. R. in Journ. Phil. XXXIII p. 99Google Scholar to expel 656 instead of 657 is only of interest as showing how bad a critic a good scholar may be. It ruins the passage through and through. If that verse goes, 658–61 go with it, and no writing cadit and pendit will save them.

^{page 167 note 2} impendes in 663, not vedimes or anything else in 662, is of course the true correction. The blow which fell on Admetus was not that Alcestis saved his life, but that she lost her own.

^{page 167 note 3} For murdering Phocus in his early youth, and for killing Eurytion at the Calydonian hunt, which has been mentioned in 643 sq.

^{page 167 note 4} Apollinaris Sidonius carm. V 197 transfers the father's name to the son, but Seneca cannot have made that blunder in a passage where he was speaking of both.

^{page 167 note 5} It would be mere trifling to pretend that Oileus is 'Οιλες, a genitive like the 'Οδυσες of Hom. Od. XXIV 398. Hardie's vocative Olieu, impossible with his own reading of 660, '≺tum; suoque Aia≺x patrioque’, where Aiax is called Aiax, becomes possible, though not commendable, with mine, where gnats gives it something to cling to.