^{page 211 note 1} In § 156 ἔγραφεν must surely be a misprint for ἔγραΦεν.

^{page 213 note 1} At the very beginning of the treatise, Radermacher (like Spengel) rightly retains μιμτροις unobelized in the text. In support of the manuscript reading, he refers to W. Christ Gr. Metriks ² p. 120, and might still more appositely hare quoted π. ρμ. §. 180 (cp. §4).

^{page 215 note 1} Though agreeing with Radermacher that, on the whole, the first century A.D. is a more likely date than the first century B.C., I do not regard the evidence as conclusive and should be sorry to ignore Demetrius Syrus (Cic. Brut. 315) as a possible claimant.

^{page 215 note 2} Finckh was, I believe, the first to direct attention to the passage of Diog. Laert. (vii. 1) here in question. May I also point out that (1) R.'s residing χλας in § 174 has been anticipated by Th. Gomperz (Philodem und die ästhetischen Schriften der herculanischen Bibliothek, p. 71); (2) misled apparently by the abbreviation ‘Schneid.’ in Walz, R. attributes (in § 2) to Schneidewin an emendation due to Schneider ?