¹ Specialists will no doubt notice omissions in the literature: I have drawn attention to one or two above. One reservation must be made, though I have relegated it to this foot-note expressly to keep it in perspective: the potted textual histories of individual authors, depending as they do largely on the existing editions, are of unequal authority and value. I give four instances: (1) Livy. There is no mention of recent contributions such as those on the tradition of the First Decade by Ogilvie, R. M. (C.Q., N.S. vii [1957], 68–81)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and of the Fourth by McDonald, A. H. (Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 1960, 43–48)Google Scholar. (2) Ovid. The names of Tafel and Slater are missing, though that of Bornecque is present; no mention of recent literature on the ‘Doppelfassungen’ in Met., a central critical problem; the Halieutica is included in the list of Ovid's works. (3) Persius. No mention of Clausen's important demonstration that ancient tradition survives in the recentiores, but Seel's review of Clausen's edition is cited (p. 598), for what purpose I cannot imagine. (4) Juvenal. Discussion of the O-fragment is burked—Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark!