^{page 54 note 1} I adopt throughout Mr Marx's numeration of the fragments, which is more convenient and less arbitrary than Mueller's. He says in his preface ‘inprimis cauendum esse duxi, ne temere certo alicui libro incertae sedis fragmenta tribuantur, quo perfacile deducere solet editores fragmentorum noua docendi cupiditas’: if this is a hit at Mr Vahlen's Ennius iis well deserved.

^{page 54 note 2} Lucilius probably wrote ‘haec ubi dicta dedit, pausam <dedit> ore loquendi’ (Verg. Aen. vi 76 ‘finem dedit ore loquendi’), and the scribe discarded the second dedit. The repetition of a single word in a couple of senses is one of those savage ornaments in which early Latin poetry is wretchedly rich : ‘quod fors feret, feremus’ and so on.

^{page 55 note 1} Rev. de Philol. 1890 p. 86 ‘La phrase signifie: je te renseignerai quand même, puisque je suis resté vivant. Les vivants sont le petit nombre par rapport aux morts’.

^{page 55 note 2} Mr Marx says ‘auctoris nomine subtracto probat hanc interpretationem Muellerus ad Non. 1. s. s.’ Mueller in his Luciliana of 1884, p. 21, reviewing Mr Marx's first work, had written as follows, ‘Gut wird auch S. 20 xv, 16 … nach Keller's Vorgang gegen meine Vermuthung poleticon vertheidigt und weiter begründet’. Two of the best corrections ever made in Lucilius, Turnebus' Lupe saperdae te at 54 and Lachmann's nec es satis at 1235, are accepted by Mr Marx ‘auctorum nominibus subtractis’.

^{page 56 note 1} Mr Marx in vol. i p. v says of his apparatus criticus ‘scripturas singulas emendatas religiose uindicaui auctoribus: si cui scripturae nomen auctoris aliquod additum non est, editori uelim tribuas’. He thus claims many emendations which are not his; for instance 155 furia (some MSS), 191 sed nunc (Mueller), 318 isti (Scaliger), 376 an c (Dousa), 659e (MSS and edd.), 676 Roma (Mueller and others), 748 iactat (Iunius), 884 alieni simul (Baeh-rens), 1046 hanc (Lachmann). Two or three of these he subsequently assigns to their true owners in the commentary, where however at 656 he puts forward Lachmann's ei as his own, forgetting also that at 43 and again in the index he has denied to Lucilius the use of the dative of is. His apparent unwillingness to mention the name of Munro is curious and noteworthy. At 303 Munro's correction conof Non. p. 308 is ascribed to Mr Stowasser; at 311 Munro's conjecture omen 0 is ascribed to Baehrens ; Munro's explanation of 474 sq. is ascribed to Mr Havet; at 497 Munro's note on Lucr. v 154 (cited with extraordinary irrelevance, but let that pass) is ascribed to Giussani, who quotes it in inverted commas and assigns it to Munro by name; at 1364 Mr Marx says ‘Ennii potius uersus aliis uideri refert Briegerus’, when Mr Brieger's words are ‘Enniana sibi uideri dicit Munro’; at 131 he says ‘quem usum uocabuli uidere agnoscunt in traditis apud Horat. carm. i 20 10, ubi uide quae Hertzius adnotauit’, whereas what Hertz has noted is that Munro conjecin tured uides in the year 1871 and that two scholars have followed him. On the other hand poesis in 343 is ascribed to Munro though Munro ascribed it to Mr Ellis.

^{page 56 note 2} So, as I now find, Mr Havet in Rev. dt Philol. 1890, p. 89. And Mr Marx has suppressed this conof jecture and published his own.

^{page 63 note 1} Mr Marx applies the name ‘Palmerius’ indifferently to a Frenchman of the 17th century called Jacques Le Paulmier and an Englishman of the 19th called Arthur Palmer.

^{page 70 note 1} Arch. f. Lat. lex. xiv p. 445 ‘wir besitzen nun die vor einem halben Jahrhundert von Lachmann erwartete Luciliusausgabe mit erklärenden Noten, wie wir sie, namentlich was die Beiziehung der griechischen Literatur betrifft, von Lachmann kaum hätten erwarten diirfen’.