^{page 287 note 1} Can one insist on ‘concordances for-melles’ (p. vi) between Tr. i. 6. 13 (nescioquis) and Ibis 9 (quisquis is est)?

^{page 287 note 2} André does not interpret modo at v. 56 ‘metre’; but cf. C.R. Ixxiii (1959), 39.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 1} TGP_p (= La Penna's P₁) V; FH cited intermittently. La Penna's conclusions on the tradition are in the main accepted by André.

^{page 288 note 2} At 189–90, Heinsius' palmary Teorum … sontibus having been given, we do not require to be told that it was accepted by ‘Bährens, Ehwald–Levy’—unequal yokemates!—for the information adds nothing to the merits of the conjecture.

^{page 288 note 3} The latter may be illustrated from the list of sigla on pp. 1–2, which yields the following: ‘Philippicus’—spelt correctly by La Penna; ‘bibl. Com. Leicester’ [incorrect now in any case], ‘in editione 1590’, ‘XII° s.’ [very odd syntax, this], ‘XII^e s.’; ‘Myrcilli’ for ‘Mycilli’; and so on.