^{page 8 note 1} have discussed this point in my dissertation, entitled, ‘Contraction in the Case-forms of the Latin io and iā Stems, and of deus, is and idem,’ Chicago, 1902, and the following remarks are merely supplementary to what I have said there.

^{page 8 note 2} See references in Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, s.vir.

^{page 9 note 1} It is possible that Professor Exon meant to include his conjectural restoration of diei for di in Ps. 767 and for diui in Aul. 50; 5 is about 2 per cent, of 291 (Ps. 767 is, of course, included in the 290 instances mentioned in the text). It should be clear to every one, however, that such uncertain conjectures cannot be admitted in evidence. I have previously (l.c. p. 19) given the number as 287. Now, of course, I must include the three instances in which, for the sake of the argument, the reading diei instead of diui is granted.

^{page 9 note 2} On the cogency of such a consensus of the two families of manuscripts see Lindsay, Ancient Editions of Plautus, p. 150.

^{page 9 note 3} Abraham, Stuaia Plautina, p. 204, ascribes his emendation to Studemund without reference. I cannot find Studemund's treatment of the line. Did he make the suggestion in conversation or by letter ?

^{page 9 note 4} Klotz, Altrömische Metrik, p. 237, is wrong in thinking, apparently, that the opening of Ter. Ad. 392, pudet pigetque, is more usual than minas decem (Ad. 242), etc.

^{page 10 note 1} Cf. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen, pp. 191 f.

^{page 10 note 2} So I gather from Leo, l.c., p. 192. I have not seen Marx' article.

^{page 10 note 3} The text is that of Goetz and Schoell.

^{page 10 note 4} I am not sure that this was Leo's reason for condemning the line. In his note he refers to Dziatzko (l.c.), who objected to the verse because accidunt stands where we should expect descendant. Professor Knapp calls my attention to the use of accido in the same sense in Lucr. iv. 215 and Caes. B. G. iii. 14.

^{page 10 note 5} lleague, Professor Charles Knapp.

^{page 11 note 1} This part of Professor Exon's article (pp. 341 ff.) is an amplification of an earlier discussion of the eo-stems in Hertnathena, xiii. pp. 149 f.

^{page 11 note 2} On page 340 Professor Exon says it is by no means sure that ei after i became ī at about 150 B.C But everywhere else in the two articles he assumes the change, and its reality is proved by the contracted forms floui, controuersis, Iamiaris, Veituris, and Vituris in the inscription C.I.L. i. 199 of 117 B.C